An exceptionally well explained rant that I find myself in total agreement with.

  • JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    IMO the value of RHEL is in the packaging, testing guarantee (you know everything they offer has been thoroughly tested), and the enterprise support. IANAL but those things seem to be solely the result of their own work, and shouldn’t be subject to the licenses of the software they redistribute. If not legally, then at least morally. They could allow you to freely download and redistribute the raw source code that they pull from public git repos, but that wouldn’t make a difference because you can already get the exact same thing elsewhere.

    The majority of RHEL clones don’t offer enterprise support (usually it’s a separate company that offers it and the clone doesn’t receive that money, but either way it won’t be close the level of quality that a vertically-integrated mega-corp can provide), so they’re not taking business away from RH. If anything, it’s actually on-boarding new customers to RHEL. The clones getting the packaging and the majority of the testing guarantee is also not egregious, because they’re not backed by a big enough corporation to do those things themselves, and they aren’t making enough money to afford it either.

    None of those things are true for Oracle: they offer paid support that is similar in quality to RH, and thus will take away business; they definitely have the resources to thoroughly test and package everything themselves and they likely make enough money from their support to afford it while still making a profit.

    • jmp242
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But here’s the thing. You’re saying that it’s wrong to base development or support on RHEL because of

      the packaging, testing guarantee (you know everything they offer has been thoroughly tested), and the enterprise support. How does this change for Fedora? It seems like Red Hat shouldn’t be able to just copy their code right? Because they are doing a lot of packaging and testing and someone could offer support.

      IANAL but those things seem to be solely the result of their own work, and shouldn’t be subject to the licenses of the software they redistribute.

      IANAL either, but you don’t get to ignore software licenses legally just because you don’t like what they say. This is well settled law.

      I do also find the idea that we should worry about legal competition to protect one specific business a bit concerning. If Red Hat can’t offer better support then that’s on them. This same argument seems to me like it would be against right to repair, independent car repair shops and more.