While I disagree with Red Hat’s decision to hinder source access, this move from Rocky (a commercial company!) seems even more disingenuous, imho.
While I disagree with Red Hat’s decision to hinder source access, this move from Rocky (a commercial company!) seems even more disingenuous, imho.
Well, Red Hat doesn’t really get paid (of course, I’m not arguing RH is not making or doesn’t have enough money) – they would get payed for one or a very small number of licenses. At the same time, Rocky (and Alma and more importantly Oracle) wants to actually sell (albeit only support) the same product put together by Red Hat so it’s not really a community RHEL clone. I think that’s the real issue here. I wouldn’t have a problem with this workaround if it were coming from the community, without the commercial asterisk attached.
I agree, I think it would have been better if Rhel just came clean with the real facts instead of pussy footing around it. I am on board with keeping open source open, but if Rocky is undercutting rhel for support with basically a red hat product, it changes the dynamic a lot.
Also, if Rocky is doing this, then it will be rocky’s fault that this clone system falls apart. Alma I believe is not for profit 1:1 and far more ethical.
Let’s not forget Oracle! While Rocky bit the bullet with this poorly written announcement, I believe Red Hat’s target was in fact Oracle, not some 20 employees startup with no customers.
RHEL have specifically mentioned Rocky here…
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/problem-rocky-linux-free-beer-magnus-glantz/
Since Rocky provides support (for basically a rhel build), I would think Rocky are definitely on the radar.
I don’t actually disagree with the main thrust of his argument, but he loses me the conspiratorial way he talks about Rocky.