On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 3:04 PM Josh Boyer <jwboyer at redhat.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 1:41 PM redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel > <centos-devel at centos.org> wrote: > > On Sunday, January 24, 2021 11:50 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at redhat.com> wrote: > > > As a general reminder, the GPL and LGPL are source code licenses. The > > > source code to the packages in Red Hat Enterprise Linux releases, GPL > > > or otherwise, are released on git.centos.org, which requires no > > > registration and no terms to accept. The recent announcements around > > > CentOS Linux and CentOS Stream did not alter this approach. > > But Josh Boyer has taken the threat from Red Hat to the next level. > I made no threat. I pointed out that we provide sources to packages, > regardless of whether they were GPL or not and any recent > announcements haven't changed that. For "we provide source to packages", this was my understanding: 1) RHEL packages are available in SRPM form from a public FTP site. For GPL software, this nicely aligns with the spirit of the GPL. For non-GPL software, this may be an additional nice gesture to apply GPL thinking to all the source code whether or not it is GPL. It may also keep things simple, since so much of it is GPL. For the software published to the public on the public FTP site, there should be no restrictions that apply, as there is no agreement between the user and Red Hat. 2) RHEL EUS packages are available in SRPM form only to subscribers with EUS subscriptions. For GPL software, such a person should be able to legally download the SRPM, rebuild it, and redistribute the newly built binary as a right provided by the GPL. However, the Red Hat contract states some restrictions around access to non-public content which may contradict the GPL, in which case this is a place where Red Hat could void the contract despite the GPL granting full rights to the user. For non-GPL software, this is much more grey zone. Personally, I've avoiding looking at or using the SRPM content from RHEL EUS, as it seems like a landmine. Instead, I prefer to use an upstream release from Fedora or EPEL, or backport a later RHEL package version, than rely on RHEL EUS. For those not aware - RHEL EUS is generally the minor release date plus two years, and represents the "branch" that people were talking about when they say that RHEL differs from CentOS Linux. Essentially, RHEL has EUS streams, while CentOS Linux does not have EUS streams. 3) RHEL ELS packages are available in SRPM form only to subscribers with ELS subscriptions. This is the same as above, but could extend beyond the 10 years support life of an RHEL release. I don't think I've ever had an ELS subscription so I can't speak much more about this. When it comes to CentOS Linux, CentOS Linux aligned with 1). It never aligned with 2) or 3). With CentOS Stream, I believe 1) will also disappear. The reference to git.centos.org seems to be glossing over that git.centos.org does not contain the RHEL / RHEL EUS / RHEL ELS package sources, but only includes the *CentOS* sources. And if CentOS Stream continues, then CentOS Stream sources will receive updates, but if CentOS Linux does not continue, then it seems doubtful that CentOS Linux sources will receive updates. Meaning, that by 2022, I expect the RHEL sources to no longer be available via git.centos.org, and the idea that "announcements haven't change that" is likely to be false. I think announcements have definitely changed this. But, let's come back to this in a year and see who is right. -- Mark Mielke <mark.mielke at gmail.com>