They were bought by IBM a few years back, but even aside from that they’re a corporation and they care about making money above all else.
It looks like Red Hat is doing its damnedest to consolidate as much power for themselves within the Linux ecosystem.
I don’t think the incessant Fedora shilling is unrelated.
It seems like there isn’t much criticism of the company or their tactics, and I’m curious if any of you think that should change.
Ok, but why is there even an agreement required to access to source to something, uh, open source?
The GPL says you can get the source to software that people distribute to you. Red Hat does not distribute to Rocky.
Seems like they use that to circumvent other parts of the gpl, in spirit and possibly in the letter of the law. Others have more and better things to say about it than I:
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/
https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2023/dear-red-hat-are-you-dumb
Because CIQ, the company that bankrolls Rocky, was poaching Red Hat customers. They were hiring Red Hat sales people, then using their contacts to swoop in and drastically undercut Red Hat because they don’t do any engineering. It is an effort to stop leeches like CIQ/Rocky.
There’s an easy solution to that. RedHat could just pay their salespeople what they are worth and keep them at RedHat.
I don’t see the problem with that. Red Hat is bankrolled by IBM. I don’t have any qualms about them facing competition, even underhanded competition which I don’t think this is. Contributing to open source doesn’t and shouldn’t guarantee financial compensation, customers, whatever.
So, you’re okay with one company taking another company’s work, contributing nothing to it themselves, then hiring company A’s employees, and finally taking company A’s customers? Not even Oracle was slimy enough to do that.
IBM does not bank roll Red Hat. Red Hat acts and reports independently of IBM.
@FlexibleToast @zero_spelled_with_an_ecks If that company built upon open source and had then to release their work because of the original license, then I can’t speak for others, but I’m ok with it. They can do original work or they can build on others, if they do the latter then they have to expect the same.
Right, I think you’re basically saying what I think most of us would agree with. Don’t just copy the homework and poach customers. You can copy the homework and add your own value to it and earn customers. Bonus points for adding that value add back into the community like Alma does with their HPC work.
I guess you consider the parts of open source that are contributed to be owned by the contributors? I don’t think that’s how open source works nor how it should work.
IBM doesn’t bankroll Red Hat? Buddy, IBM owns Red Hat https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/ibm-closes-landmark-acquisition-red-hat-34-billion-defines-open-hybrid-cloud-future
Buddy, I know IBM owns them. I also know that Red Hat is basically the only thing making IBM money. Look at the financials a little more closely.
What would that have to do with anything? That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m against companies that take an open source project to profit off of it without making any contributions to the community. CIQ and Canonical to a lesser extent. I have no issues with people like Red Hat, SUSE, Alma, etc…
I’m not. I don’t think we’re going to change each other’s mind, so have a good one.