[HN Gopher] Keeping Open Source Open ___________________________________________________________________ Keeping Open Source Open Author : deafcalculus Score : 22 points Date : 2023-06-29 20:44 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (rockylinux.org) (TXT) w3m dump (rockylinux.org) | fariszr wrote: | > One option is through the usage of UBI container images which | are based on RHEL and available from multiple online sources | (including Docker Hub). Using the UBI image, it is easily | possible to obtain Red Hat sources reliably and unencumbered. We | have validated this through OCI (Open Container Initiative) | containers and it works exactly as expected. | | > Another method that we will leverage is pay-per-use public | cloud instances. With this, anyone can spin up RHEL images in the | cloud and thus obtain the source code for all packages and | errata. This is the easiest for us to scale as we can do all of | this through CI pipelines, spinning up cloud images to obtain the | sources via DNF, and post to our Git repositories automatically. | | That's quite the workaround, the rocky team has proven it's | willing to get hacky if needed. | axus wrote: | I was poking around the Rocky Linux website, and wondering where | to download the latest source code for Rocky 9.2? Let's say IBM | decides not to burn up the ecosystem, will Oracle / Alma start | using the source that Rocky exfiltrates? | | Related question, as a Red Hat subscriber can I still distribute | Red Hat ISO and source code? It seems like I should be able to | distribute ISO images and source after obtaining them.. but not | repackage it? I don't plan to impose any restrictions on the | people I distribute to. | EvanAnderson wrote: | Are the RHEL SRPMS watermarked for individual Customers in any | way? It seems like Redhat has no mechanism to stop a torrent of | the SRPMS showing-up. Attribution would be exceedingly difficult. | Since distribution of FLOSS-licensed source isn't copyright | infringement it's not like they could DMCA it away. | | Arguably the specfiles are able to be copyrighted. I wonder what | the license is like for those. | geerlingguy wrote: | It sounds like they have two different mechanisms they can pull | from currently, which will get them to parity with RHEL releases. | | Red Hat would need to shift a few knobs and probably offend quite | a few people running UBI images at least (including a zillion | folks in the OpenShift community who rely on them) to cut off | this current approach to getting the sources. | | I wonder if Red Hat is willing to play this game of whack a mole? | And IMO, was it worth it? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-06-29 23:01 UTC)