[CentOS-devel] [EXT] Re: RFC: kmods SIG Proposal

Sun May 23 12:31:00 UTC 2021
Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com>

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 8:08 AM redbaronbrowser
<redbaronbrowser at protonmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 23, 2021 6:14 AM, Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 6:44 AM redbaronbrowser
> > redbaronbrowser at protonmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > My understanding is taken from the Linux Developer's mailing list.
> > > I agree with you that if IBM/Red Hat Legal department has already ruled on this then we shouldn't be including IBM PL covered kernel modules. However, it would also be nice to have the exact wording from the IBM/RH Legal department.
> > > This seems like a next level example of irony when the IBM/RH Legal department says that a IBM/RH sponsor project can't package/distribute a IBM/RH FOSS project because of the license that IBM/RH choose.
> > > At some point it would be nice if OpenAFS project which is made up mostly of code owned by IBM/RH could acknowledge the issues that IBM/RH Legal department raises and address them so that CentOS, a IBM/RH sponsor project, can distirbute the kernel module someday in the future.
> >
> > You seem to be under the impression that IBM actually isdoing
> > anything with Red Hat on this. They're not. Red Hat and IBM have
> > separate legal departments entirely. Also, since OpenAFS has had
> > contributions from folks other than IBM, it's not straightforward to
> > relicense the project anymore.
> I'm under the impression that IBM has been for a while saying they want to hear what they could do to help the needs of the FOSS community.  To be fair to IBM, on some thing they have done a good job at listening.
> I'm also under the impression that IBM indicated when buying Red Hat that they were continuing their investiment in helping the FOSS community.
> Also, I see a major selling of Stream to be control is being handed over to the community.  As Rich Bowen has pointed out, we are now responsible for the success (or failure) of Stream and if it gets us the results we want.
> I don't expect a transistion to happen over night.  If RH Legal continues to indicate there is good reasons why OpenAFS kernel modules can not be distributed in a CentOS SIG at the beginning of 2022, I can be understanding about that.
> But there should be a path way forward for OpenAFS inclusion in the SIG someday if IBM and Red Hat are to be taken at their word.  And it should be our obligation as a community to clearly state what our needs from those open ended offers are.
> The birth of Stream should mean the community can expect to see "you can't expect that from CentOS" less often because for the majority of things the community should be defining what CentOS Stream is.
> If IBM/RH Legal has said "you can't" in the past, that is fine.  I don't hold it against them for doing their job.  But moving forward when the obstacle is as close a partner as IBM, the answer from legal eventually needs to be "you can't right now, but let me get back to you on when you can."
> Otherwise, it seems to me that the community is just being put through the downsides of this transition to Stream without enough advantages.  If the "you can not"s remain exactly the same going from CentOS 8 to Stream 8, what is the point?

You are conflating completely different things.

First, IBM isn't involved in anything around CentOS Stream. Red Hat
has been very consistent about this. Many Red Hatters have confirmed
this over and over. If they were lying, they would be in considerable
trouble for making such statements publicly.

Second, IBM hasn't owned the OpenAFS project for many years. It was
spun off in 2013 to the OpenAFS Foundation[1]. Additionally, the
OpenAFS Foundation would need to gather approvals from the OpenAFS
contributors themselves to relicense the code, since there's no CLA
requirement to contribute. You are barking up the wrong tree to change
the license of OpenAFS.

Third, Red Hat operates as a separate company under the IBM
conglomerate. That means completely separate HR, legal, sales,
marketing, and engineering teams. IBM also famously requires companies
under its ownership to coordinate with each other as if they weren't
owned by IBM, so Red Hat and IBM Cloud teams have to directly
negotiate for deals with no help from the parent anyway.

I'm personally getting very tired of how you keep doing this on the
list. You don't disclose anything about yourself and you continue to
attempt (and in some instances, succeed) at gaslighting the CentOS
community. You're stoking the flames and I'm increasingly suspicious
that you're *trying* to make this fail. I would appreciate it if you
started operating in good faith rather than whatever you're doing now.

[1]: http://www.openafsfoundation.org/

真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!