Can someone ELI5 the situation with Red Hat and CentOS?
Can someone ELI5 the situation with Red Hat and CentOS?
I've been hearing about it a lot over the last few days, but I don't exactly understand what's going on. What's going on with Red Hat, and how does it affect Linux users?
You're viewing a single thread.
RedHat creates a product called RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) that is a paid support product, mostly targeted at businesses (and things like Academia/Laboratories/etc).
At one point, there was a Wholly seperate product, created outside the RedHat umbrella, called CentOS, that quite literally took the sources of RHEL, removed the RHEL branding, and rebuilt it, allowing folks to "mostly" be able to use RHEL, without paying RedHat for a support contract.
In 2014, the CentOS Project/Product was "purchased" by RedHat, and then in 2020, RedHat decided that CentOS would no longer just be a "rebuilt" RHEL, but instead would become the development space for RHEL, called CentOS Stream. This made many people very unhappy, and they decided to start the Rocky Linux and AlmaLinux projects to provide roughly the same product that prior versions of CentOS had provided.
Additionally (I don't actually know exactly when), at some point, Oracle started doing basically the same thing that CentOS had been doing, and rebuilding the RHEL sources, and selling it, as "Oracle Linux"
So net effect of what this means, is that RHEL sources will no longer be publicly available at git.centos.org, and will only be available to RedHat customers (i.e. you must have signed up for an account/license with RedHat for RHEL). This may make things more difficult for Rocky, Alma, and Oracle, to provide the same "Bug for Bug" compatible product to RHEL.
Most of what people are upset about, is because they're willfully misreading the GPL (GNU Public License) which covers an awful lot of the RHEL sources.
The GPL requires that if you distribute software, licensed under the GPL, that you also must provide the folks that you distribute that software to, with the sources you used. It doesn't specify how you have to provide them, you could make them available for download, you could mail folks a DVD with all the sources on it, (honestly, I think you might be able to just print them all out and send them on dead trees, and still be compliant).
What most of the folks are upset about, is there is a clause within the GPL, that says something about providing the sources "without restriction on redistribution" or some such. And they view that RedHat can choose to terminate your license to RHEL, if you redistribute RHEL sources/software as violating the GPL. But the GPL cannot dictate business relationships. Redhat cannot stop one of their customers from distributing sources that they are licensed to have. But they are well within their legal rights to terminate that license, and provide no further access, if you distribute them. (i.e. you have an RHEL license, and version 1.0 of a library is covered under that license, you redistribute that source, and RedHat must allow that, but they're under no obligation to continue that business relationship, and provide you continuing access to version 1.1)
That's a rough rundown on the history. What does this mean for the average linux user? Nothing, really. Unless you happen to use Rocky Linux, AlmaLinux, or Oracle Linux. It doesn't affect Debian, or Ubuntu, or openSUSE, or Arch, or anybody else. RedHat will continue to contribute back upstream to projects like the linux kernel, or GNOME, or what have you, they will continue to sponsor and hire developers, they just will no longer be providing free and open access to the RHEL Sources.
It's not a question of legality really, but more one of an ethical nature. It sort of depends on you, as to whether or not you're bothered by RedHat doing this or not.
Unless you happen to use Rocky Linux, AlmaLinux, or Oracle Linux. It doesn't affect Debian, or Ubuntu, or openSUSE, or Arch, or anybody else.
So, stupid question, but would Fedora be affected at all? I know that's related to Red Hat, but I'm guessing it's not affected since it's not based on RHEL.
It's not a question of legality really, but more one of an ethical nature. It sort of depends on you, as to whether or not you're bothered by RedHat doing this or not.
I'd say I'm bothered by it, but there's not really anything I can do about it. I'm disappointed the GPL doesn't have stricter rules regarding the distribution of source code though. I feel like it kinda defeats the purpose if sources aren't freely available to anyone who wants to use them.
No, this doesn't affect Fedora in any meaningful way. Fedora is upstream of RHEL.
This is what I immediately wondered about as I'm on a Fedora spin.
That makes sense. I thought it was upstream but I wasn't sure.
The only thing I think you may have gotten mixed up here is that CentOS or other clone distros didn't remove the branding. Red Hat did that themselves in thier repositories that were used in the clones.
If I'm remembering correctly, in the very early days of Centos and the like, that was the deal that Red Hat had struck...you don't use our trademarks/branding and you can have access to all of our source. Most likely so that Red Hat wouldn't get endless support tickets without pay if something went wrong on a clone package.
The rest of this seems pretty spot on.
That's entirely possible. I never actually used, contributed, or developed for CentOS, so I might have some small details wrong.
Thanks for the thorough explanation - What does this mean for Fedora OS? Isn't that maintained by Redhat as well? I have a fairly large fedora server base in my homelab and hope I don't need to redeploy it all!
Absolutely nothing. Fedora is upstream of RHEL.
Doesn't Red Hat own/run the Fedora Project though? Or is there some governance and/or infrastructure to prevent Red Hat from messing with it?
I am only peripherally involved in Fedora as a contributor, but as I understand it, yes there is governance and infrastructure in place.
There is a legal question. It would have to be litigated to be resolved, though. The argument is that when RHEL threatens to cut off future business, they are placing a restriction on redistribution. RHEL would argue that it's a restriction on future business, not on current redistribution, but who can say what a court would make of that distinction.
It's true that RHEL does not have to continue a business relationship in general, but the point here is that they need to follow the GPL when making relevant business decisions.
See also https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/