There is a reason some of us chose to support Debian and its model of allowing downstream companies like Ubuntu (Canonical) to give back up to the open source father. And this is it. We dont need to compromise here. We already have a system that works perfectly and provides a choice for what suits you. If you are an enterprise then try Ubuntu instead of RHEL. If you are a home user you dont need enterprise support and can help us log bug reports and create the next version of Trixie. We need more testers and we have fought this long fight and proven we wont give up. What other proof do you need?

More recently, we have determined that there isn’t value in having a downstream rebuilder.

Alright, well, there it is in plain English. They're killing downstream clones like Rocky, Alma, etc.

I have to wonder how this is going to affect software which officially only supports (insert RHEL clone here). I use DaVinci Resolve for work every day, historically they've only supported CentOS, and just recently they started supporting Rocky as well. VFX isn't my wheelhouse, but I know the situation is basically the same for those programs as well.

Lots of words to say:

1. We do what we are legally allowed to do.
2. We don’t care for the spirit of open source (anymore).
3. Pay up or fuck off!

headline: IBM STILL DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ITS RESPONSIBILITY WITH OPEN SOURCE

Nothing much more to see here; just, the spots have finally come in on the leopard.

But, as IBM isn't responsible for systemd, ansible and similar trumped-up barely-capable competitors, it's not all IBM's fault. Let it sell crutches as long as it can.

I don't think anyone's arguing that Red Hat isn't in the right, legally, to do what they did (anymore). At this point, I think Redhat users are just tired of being jerked around. We're not children, most of us in the industry have been around a while and have seen this same story play out over and over again. We can see the writing on the wall and they've destroyed the trust of their community so, a long winded blog post defending their decision, arguing that they are within their rights to do it is largely irrelevant at this point. They've lost the narrative and the industry (us) will respond by gradually finding ways either away from or around Red Hat and associated projects. Soon, the only people left using it will be the same people who use other irrelevant and dated software, government.

Guess me as an end user for Fedora should stop contributing my time and energy to identify and fix bugs, or get Fedora's name out there, because I FIND NO VALUE in giving Red Hat my FREE work.

One thing while I worked at Red Hat, they will under pay you, they will push you beyond the breaking point, they will under value you, because "we will change the world." And apparently you change the world by all those things I just mentioned.

those who do not want to pay for the time, effort and resources going into RHEL

Standard RHEL server subscription costs 800$/year, a ridiculous price for an individual to pay (yeah I know it's called Enterprise Linux, but still)

those who want to repackage it for their own profit

Funny considering that AlmaLinux OS Foundation is a non-profit

The developer subscription provides no-cost RHEL to developers and enables usage for up to 16 systems, again, at no-cost

Until RedHat decides to pull the rug, just like it already did with CentOS

Also:

The first thing to understand is that you cannot renew your no-cost Red Hat Developer Subscription for individuals after the first year. Unlike a paid subscription, the no-cost edition for developers is limited to one year.

So, what's a developer to do? Fortunately, that's easy: You can just register again. Yes, it's that simple. Once your developer subscription expires, simply re-register and get a new, no-cost subscription. Note that you must wait until your current subscription expires before you can renew it.

From: https://developers.redhat.com/articles/renew-your-red-hat-developer-program-subscription

Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way

Yeah, I think setting up build and distribution infrastructure is not adding any value

RedHat needs to be profitable, and it's getting harder and harder for them. RHEL is not their main product anymore. Everything is about Openshift and it's Ecosystem. But Openshift is expensive.

Additionally are the European sub divions not happy how the last round of layoffs went.

There are a few completely fair points in there calling out what they are legally allowed to do (e.g. they are not directly violating GPL) and are doing (contributing changes back upstream, they claim "always"), that's about the only "right" this reader found.

Have some quotes that demonstrate the "wrong":

I feel that much of the anger from our recent decision around the downstream sources comes from either those who do not want to pay for the time, effort and resources going into RHEL or those who want to repackage it for their own profit. This demand for RHEL code is disingenuous.

Ultimately, we do not find value in a RHEL rebuild and we are not under any obligation to make things easier for rebuilders; this is our call to make.

Simply rebuilding code, without adding value or changing it in any way, represents a real threat to open source companies everywhere. This is a real threat to open source, and one that has the potential to revert open source back into a hobbyist- and hackers-only activity.

On the one hand they do have a point, and as a Fedora volunteer it saddens me to see that it is affecting the wrong crowd, RH workers, who are receiving directly and indirectly the backlash, mostly snowballed by clickbait and plain disinformation.

On the other hand saying that redistributing the code you provide under the GPL "doesn't provide any value" sounds just as dystopian as it seems.

At this ratez they are just digging themselves deeper at this PR nightmare.

Cannot wait for vanilla OS 2

It sounds as though their motivation is mostly aimed at Oracle Linux from this post. Huh, I assumed it was Rocky and Alma.

I asked ChatGPT to do that exercise for me:

I find it deeply troubling to witness the erosion of true open source values within Red Hat, as outlined in the recent blog post by Mike McGrath. While he attempts to defend the company's actions, it is clear that the fundamental principles of software freedom are being undermined.

Firstly, McGrath's claims about Red Hat's commitment to open source development are misleading. Mere code contributions upstream are not sufficient to embody the spirit of the free software movement. True dedication to freedom means liberating users by ensuring that the software they use respects their rights to study, modify, and share it. Unfortunately, Red Hat's actions fall short of this ideal.

The emphasis on backporting patches and maintaining an operating system for extended periods is not inherently incompatible with open source values. However, it is the context in which these activities occur that matters. Red Hat's increasing restrictions on downstream rebuilders and its reluctance to facilitate their efforts is a disservice to the community. By limiting the ability to freely modify and redistribute the software, Red Hat is erecting barriers that hinder innovation and impede the spirit of cooperation that open source should foster.

Furthermore, the dismissal of rebuilders as mere profit-seeking entities is a distortion of reality. These rebuilders play a crucial role in expanding the reach and accessibility of open source software. By disregarding their contributions, Red Hat is failing to recognize the diverse needs of users and the benefits that can arise from a vibrant ecosystem of downstream distributions.

The introduction of CentOS Stream as a replacement for CentOS raises concerns about the viability of a truly community-driven project. While Red Hat claims that the source code remains open, the increased control exerted by the company raises questions about the autonomy and independence of the project. This shift undermines the trust and collaboration that formed the foundation of CentOS and threatens to marginalize the very community that helped build it.

I implore Red Hat to reconsider its stance and recommit to the principles that once defined the company. Open source is not simply about code contributions; it is about empowering users and fostering a community of collaboration, transparency, and shared knowledge. Red Hat must embrace these values fully, or risk betraying the very essence of the open source movement it once championed. Only by upholding software freedom can we ensure a future where technology serves the best interests of all.

IBM is working hard to kill RedHat. They are probably having a party at Canonical right now.

That's a whole lot of "Woah is me, I'm so hard done by, praise me for everything I do and most importantly pay me scrubs."

He's taliking like RHEL is the product to be monetized. I always thought the model was: the software is free - pay us for professional, enterprise-level support.

I'm supposed to complete a higher level Red Hat cert this year, but I think I'll pass, despite it counting against my KPI. These exams are hard, expensive, take a lot of time to prepare for, and the ROI is increasingly questionable. I'll rather do some vendor-agnostic k8s or Ansible cert instead. This RHEL decision definitely helped to make up my mind.

I also wonder what IBM will do to ceph. Not really buying their spiel.

Friends don't let friends use Red Shat.

Be nice if they at least gave Mike a picture for his blog posts.

I'm genuinely scared they'll be coming for ansible next.

Red Hat died the day IBM bought them. All that garbage about "leaving Red Hat alone" was of course total nonsense. IBM is doing what it does best -- squeeze its existing customer base for short term gains. This won't be the last thing Red Hat does that makes people annoyed.