Talk:Red Hat Enterprise Linux

Release schedule

RHEL 4 Update 4 Release date is wrong.

Reply: The announcement from rhelv4-announce@redhat.com was sent on 11 August 06. I changed it accordingly. Riaanvn 19:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I added the beta release dates, and corrected the release date for 5.3. These dates were obtained via going back and reading the official redhat press releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.32 (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

RHL 6.2E

I don't think RHL 6.2E should be mentionned in RHEL history. It would be more correct to say that Red Hat started to care about entreprises with this version of RHL, and thereafter made a real adapted offer to entreprises with RHEL.

Maybe you are correct. I'm not sure if "caring" about enterprises was their motive or if they had a different intention when they shifted from RHL to RHEL. However, I disagree that RHL 6.2E should be omitted from the history, because it shows a key moment when the decision was made to re-brand their product from RHL to RHEL. --proxxz ^talk 13:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5

(from: http://www.redhat.com/rhel/ ) ... Note that the AS, ES and WS variants provided by prior releases of Red Hat Enterprise Linux are not available for version 5. Direct replacements for all these products are provided with version 5. See the upgrade information for more details.

--Fedkad 08:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: Is RHEL *really* open source or not?

You can NOT download RHEL unless you buy certain subscription. Is the source code of RHEL available after you buy it? Is it legal in terms of LINUX GPL?

Yes, because the *source* is freely available (hence the clones exist). Open source does not mean free (as in beer).

Yes. All they have to do under the GPL is provide the source (either by mail for a tiny shipping cost) or online. Redhat are in fact very helpful and provide the source in SRPM form on thier FTP server, as well as with the boxed copies of the software.

Opensource does not = free.

They are perfectly allowed to charge for the compiled binary product so long as the sourcecode is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As the article says the bulk of RHEL is FOSS but there are non-free trademarks and artwork in there which must be removed to allow redistribution. Including free and non-free stuff together in a linux distro is considered to fall under the "mere aggregation" term of the GPL so it's fine in that regard. 130.88.108.187 (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer (and yes, I work for Red Hat), but IMHO all free software movement (as distinct from the free culture one) is about is the freedom of the computer source code. Nobody guarantees that any artwork is guaranteed to be free. Which IMHO is the same fault by which I believe people around Debian arguing Firefox is not free (see bruhaha around IceWeasel) are wrong. Again, not speaking in the name of my employer etc. Ceplm (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Question: Is RHEL *really* open source or not?

I think you have access to the source code off the Red Hat ftp site (ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS/), no need to register or anything.

Re: Question: Is RHEL *really* open source or not?

It should be noted that CentOS ([1]) is an non-commercial rebuild of RHEL from the source -- it simple removes the Redhat branding/artwork. Many companies who want the stability of RHEL but don't want to pay for it use CentOS instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisKurtz (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Desktop 4 vs. Desktop 5

Has anyone else noticed that in RHEL4 Desktop you got all the development stuff, devel libraries, gcc, emacs, autoconf, php, apache but now in RHEL5, you don't get it with Desktop you need Workstation instead? I can't find a reference for this though. Rythie 14:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any specific reference to what was removed between Desktop 4 and Desktop 5, but this page gives a good comparison between the Desktop variants, including stating that the Workstation Option "Includes the Red Hat Enterprise Linux software development stack". Riaanvn 19:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In 3 and 5 you only get dev tools with workstation. Maybe you are wrong, or 4 was a change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.93.46 (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Usage of "RHEL"

OK, the very first line of the article says it is improper to refer to Red Hat Enterprise Linux as RHEL, as does the very first reference cited. But then the product is consistently referred to as "RHEL" throughout the rest of the article. What's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.162.97 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 27 February 2008

Probably because I added the reference, but didn't go throughout the article changing each RHEL reference. You are very welcome to do it yourself if you want. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 01:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.162.97 (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"Red Hat Enterprise Linux is often abbreviated to RHEL, but Red Hat is now attempting to discourage this.[1]" Read the article... it seem to me that is the point of view of few people inside Red Hat and is not mandatory, I think that this line should be removed, just look the URL of Red Hat Enterprise Linux... it contains RHEL; if they don't want RHEL they should be the first to remove the RHEL from the Red Hat website. Again: Removing the use of RHEL seem to me that is the point of view of few people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.28.25 (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's all a bit silly really. Even if RH (y'know, Red Hat) gets its knickers in a twist about it, it's not up to them what people call their product. It is well within the scope of an encyclopedia to abbreviate long terms, and repeating popular usage should be acceptable here, so long as it is introduced as such. Unless of course, this is a vanity article? --Rfsmit (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC) (edited --Rfsmit (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

2009-01-20 Tim Burke, Senior Director of Software Engineering with Red Hat says in a video covering key features of the newly released RHEL 5.3, "Every minor release of RHEL has an … has an evolution of power management features, so we get greener and greener." I'm not campaigning to undo 65.24.162.97's two 2008-02-27 revisions; I'm just pointing out that they – especially the first – were wasted effort. --Rfsmit (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fastest supercomputer

Doesn't the fastest supersomputer use this operating system? I think the supercomputer is owned by IBM. This might look nice in the aricle... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.12.31 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reference to it, then it can be included. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It says as much on the current events section of Wikipedia's main page today. Brentt (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see the home page article, and the use of RHEL isn't sourced in the actual article. I've got a source from InformationWeek (http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/supercomputers/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208402904) which says that it runs "Red Hat Linux" (which they probably meant as RHEL). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 23:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Terms

Under Variants: People sometimes mistakenly refer to ES as "Enterprise Server". If Red Hat has not defined what the branding "ES" means, and especially considering the brand covers an enterprise server product, then it is not a mistake to assume "ES" stands for "Enterprise Server". It is an assumption. Referring to this usage as mistaken is POV. Rephrased, appropriately. --Rfsmit (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If you visit their 'store' online , you'll find Server, Desktop, Workstation are the three types they sell. Within Desktop and Workstation, you can get different support packages. Within server, there are more options, due to the variety of architectures and scope. Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server for 32/64-bit x86, Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Virtual Datacenters, Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server for IBM POWER, Red Hat Enterprise Linux for IBM System z. Within each of these types are various subtypes based on the number of physical sockets, inclusion of the smart management addon, and support level. Basically, "AS", "ES", "WS" are no longer used. (05OCT2016) Xalorous (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Release/Update/Version Abbreviations

Under Version_history I added "3u8" and "4u4", as these notations are very common on the web but were not mentioned here at all. It took 20 minutes on Google to find out what those meant; lots of references, but no definition. I guess in theory this general rule could be explained above, but having all of the actual abbreviations next to each would aid search engines' recall.

Also it'd be nice to see definitions or links to the various suffixes (AS, ES) and code named versions (Pensacola, etc); right now the links go to the actual geographic cities, vs. a page that talks about Red Hat's use of that city's name in their code name. I realize some Unix gurus consider this stuff "obvious" and well known, but for those unfamiliar with the terms this wiki should spell it out.

I don't think I'm enough of a guru to explain all this to the world, but maybe somebody else here is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttennebkram (talk • contribs) 17:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Release Naming Convention

It might be good to go into the different naming conventions of the releases. For instance there is 5.1 vs 5.2 and then there are "QU1" and "QU2" (Quarterly update). I've not found any RH documentation as to what the "QU" actually means other than a reference to it being "Quartly update". --Paul (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

,.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.54.160.11 (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to free or community distributions

Is this section really appropriate in this article? This idea that the RHEL releases are somehow generated from a certain release of RHL or Fedora is not acurate. RHEL is based on whichever versions of applications have been proven to be stable together. Fedora DOES serve as a testbed for Redhat, but it is an application by application basis, not a "Fedora 4 will become RHEL 4" test. Also, each of these lists is different depending on who you ask. There is no official citable document from Redhat outlining the relationship, so I think this section should be dropped. Meton magis (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

RHEL 6 release schedule

There have been some edits on when the Red Hat 6 release is going to happen. Are there any reliable sources for this? The edit I just deleted said it was based on Fedora 14, the 2.6.38 kernel and being released 3rd quarter of 2011, which I suspect is completely made up. -- JSBillings 16:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I edited the RHEL 6 release stuff out. According to Tim Burke, VP of engineering for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, RHEL 6 is under development, but no dates or kernel versions or any of that have been set. See http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/summit/tburke_1050_rhel_roadmap.pdf for the roadmap he presented at Red Hat Summit 2009. Thomascameron (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Davidbspalding and Thomascameron for finding a reference and cleaning up the page! -- JSBillings 20:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A forum post at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/red-hat-31/when-we-shall-expect-rhel-6-a-711537/page2.html indicates that the release date may be in Sept. However this source is so far from authoritative that it's barley worth mentioning. That said, roomer is all that I've seen. --Paul (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Guess they blew it with that wild guess, eh Fnj2 (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

RHN

Perhaps RHN should be mentioned. It's highly relevant to RHEL since it's a very common way of mass-managing RHEL boxes. --Paul (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph too long

My idea is that the lead paragraph is too long. Any reader agree on that? --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph or the section. The first paragraph is only 3 sentences long. The lead itself has too many paragraph, but that's simply b/c it wasn't paragraphed well, with some single sentence paragraphs. Yworo (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Obfuscation" of patches

I am confused about this statement. How does not providing patches count as obfuscation? Couldn't anyone who wishes just run a diff tool to get patch files anyway? How is this different? Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly a diff would work if you wanted to just know all the changes. The difference from previous behavior was that Red Hat provided hundreds of patches, each with a particular feature being backported/integrated, so other vendors (read Oracle) could pick and choose which feature to port into their own maintained kernel package. Red Hat continues to maintain these patches, but they're no longer public. -- JSBillings 14:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

AS/ES abbreviations

It is often assumed the branding ES and AS stand for "Entry-level Server" and "Advanced Server", respectively. [...] However, nowhere on its site or in its literature does Red Hat say what AS, ES and WS stand for.

Who wrote this? It took me 10 seconds flat to find...

"Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (formerly Red Hat Linux Advanced Server)." http://www.redhat.com/whitepapers/rhel/AdvServerRASMpdfRev2.pdf

"Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES (“entry/mid server”)" http://www.redhat.com/whitepapers/rhel/RHEL3FamOverWPSO.pdf 70.168.250.62 (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

^ Maybe when the Author wrote that, it didn't say that on the site, but it does again now. Raindr (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091008223755/http://www.redhat.com/rhel/moving/ to https://www.redhat.com/rhel/moving/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done, it's fine. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140224120105/http://www.redhat.com:80/products/enterprise-linux-add-ons/extended-lifecycle-support/ to https://www.redhat.com/products/enterprise-linux-add-ons/extended-lifecycle-support/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Multiple version numbers in the infobox?

There is currently a discussion of whether Template:Infobox OS should be used with multiple version numbers - for example, to list both a "software update" and "next major release" beta, or to list betas from more than one release stream. If you believe that multiple {stable, preview} releases should never appear in that infobox, or if you believe that they should appear under some or all circumstances where there's more than one beta of the OS in question available, you might want to comment there. (I have no strong belief either way; I'm OK with the main OS page listing only the "next major release" beta, but listing betas from multiple streams if they exist, but I'd also be OK with other choices.) Guy Harris (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2000/press_enterprise.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140427065858/http://www.redhat.com/about/news/archive/2014/4/red-hat-enterprise-linux-7rc-available to https://www.redhat.com/about/news/archive/2014/4/red-hat-enterprise-linux-7rc-available

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Beta release dates in list?

I typically use this article to refer to release dates, which tbh I could find elsewhere; but I'm finding it extremely difficult to scout up the earliest beta release dates for each point release, for the purpose of whining to third party developers that they've "had this long since X.Y beta" to fix their software or similar. I think it would be valuable for other purposes, too (not least a record of how long each point release sits in beta). Perhaps it could be "dripped" in under this topic in talk, and then have a quick review to see if it belongs in the main article. Thoughts? --Rfsmit (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at their releases page, and it says nothing about beta releases. I also found a small news page about beta releases, but there's not much information there.--proxxz ^talk 13:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Relationship with CentOS

A RedHat Press Release lists how both Fedora and CentOS relate to RedHat Enterprise Linux.

The relevant text:

We’re making CentOS Stream the collaboration hub for RHEL, with the landscape looking like this:

• Fedora Linux is the place for major new operating system innovations, thoughts, and ideas - essentially, this is where the next major version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is born.

• CentOS Stream is the continuously delivered platform that becomes the next minor version of RHEL.

So when you are running a RedHat Enterprise Linux and you want to know where the development comes from:

RHEL 8.2 comes from Fedora, while 8.2 comes from CentOS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyraz (talk • contribs) 12:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Both Fedora and CentOS are upstreams for RHEL

A recent anonymous edit to the article changed the article to say that CentOS Stream is now the upstream for RHEL, not Fedora.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux&diff=next&oldid=1035664570

In truth, they are both upstream for RHEL. Fedora is the upstream for new major versions, and CentOS Stream is the upstream for new minor versions. I have a disclosed COI for this article, so I wanted to start a discussion here about editing the article to reflect those relationships.

Carlwgeorge (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

source code behind paywall

Lately red hat hide source code behind paywall. becasue someone revert my edition for uknown reasons i inform that this decision, technically don't break GPL. Hovewer, the controversial issue is forbid redistribution of the source code, threatening to unsubscribe. In this the same FAQ, says clearly that separately agreement (like NDA) which forbid this, can be break GPL. Unfortunately, I don't found any information about on how it is implemented in the case of red hat. If someone want find another case study i suggest gsecurity. Twomithe (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

it's not just source code redistribution that are banned, you can't redistribute binaries either

"Any software is source-available software as long its source code is distributed along with it, even if the user has no legal rights to use, share, modify or even compile it."

They technically do have legal rights

I would say this is a very grey area Original-ish-username (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Red Hat says CentOS Stream is the source repo now, but at the day, it is NOT RHEL, so i am thinking about changing open-source to source-available. Quetstar (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Best source which i can find to, Software Freedom Conservancy, concludes by expressing concerns about the difficulty of monitoring RHEL compliance with the GPL due to fear of losing service contracts and calls for reports of RHEL-related violations - because IBM refused SFC's requests. Thus, the matter remains unresolved and at the moment there is no hard evidence of being a source-avaliable product. Twomithe (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Which is why it should be marked source-available, because there is no way to verify compliance. Quetstar (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

if something isn't verifiable, it means that doesn't should on wikipedia. According to fallibilism this should only be changed when as new evidence emerges. Twomithe (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no way to verify that RHEL actually complies with its FOSS licences, so it shouldn't be marked as open source. Quetstar (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

What a response, I love it so much Gatolocosess (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

In current state, we know that don't break GPL. If new evidence comes to light, or if you have better sources, then add them - not changing without the unsourced information Twomithe (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

But the Red Hat source is a primary one, we need a secondary one to verify this. FYI, the SFC has stated that due to the changes, it is hard to verify compliance with the GPL. Quetstar (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

If SFC can't confirm anything on this matter, pretty sure most of the others are just laymen, merely speculating. Twomithe (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have called an RfC on the matter, so it will soon be settled. Quetstar (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC about the source model of RHEL

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was to describe the source model as open-source. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

---

As you may know, Red Hat recently decided to stop making the source code to RHEL available to the public. Therefore, it is difficult to verify RHEL's compliance with its FOSS licenses. The question is: Should RHEL's source model be described as open source or source available? Quetstar (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally I prefer "open source" as open source doesn't mean it has to be available for free and infoboxes should be succint. I'd like to hear some other opinions though. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I just want to add that direct derivative distributions such as Rocky Linux managed to find a workaround for paywall, using UBI container images and pay-per-use public cloud instances - and probably no one will know how legal it is until there is some lawsuit. Twomithe (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Quoting the article from The Register [2] : Red Hat has decided to stop making the source code of RHEL available to the public. From now on it will only be available to customers — who can't legally share it. Meanwhile our article defines open-source software as computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose. Note how The Register says customers can't legally share the source code.

If you want another source, Red Hat themselves says open source software [3] is code that is designed to be publicly accessible—anyone can see, modify, and distribute the code as they see fit. That's no longer the case, so Rhel isn't open source by their own definition.

RHEL is source-available at best. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think RHEL should be described as source available. This is a legal grey area and any changes here should be supported by credible sources. Red Hat still seems to think RHEL is open source and there aren't many credible sources claiming it isn't. Even if we don't describe RHEL as source available, this raises the question of whether any mentions that RHEL is FOSS should be kept. I believe they should be kept as the current mainstream consensus is that RHEL is open source, at least in the sense that it doesn't techinically violate the GPL.

Apart from that, as far as I know there are three main arguments made in favour of describing RHEL as open source software: (1) The GPL doesn't require source code to be available to everyone, only to those who have the software (and no, not just Red Hat's customers), (2) RH's agreement that restricted distribution of RHEL has existed for years and hasn't affected RHEL's open source status until now, and (3) the GPL is still in force and RH's agreement is a separate legal document that doesn't replace it. To expand on (3), redistributing RHEL does violate RH's agreement and can cause its termination, but it doesn't terminate the GPL, which is in full force regardless of the agreement. Evidence for this is that no one has ever needed a RHEL subscription to get the source code. Someone can distribute RHEL to you, and then you can write to Red Hat by post and they'll send you the code back (for a charge), in compliance with Section 3(b) of the GPLv2. Choclei (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I concur. All of the parts of the definition @Chess cited have technically been met, and most reliable sources don't deny it is open source.. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"don't deny" doesn't mean it is open source. I would like to see citations proving that it is open source. And the definition hasn't been "technically been met", Red Hat (the company) says open source is code that is designed to be publicly accessible and the code is not currently publicly accessible. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

if it's status as an open source distro is a grey area we shouldn't say that it is one. The WP:ONUS is to prove that Red Hat is an open source distro, and sources aren't saying that. In response to Red Hat still seems to think RHEL is open source, provide some citations to Red Hat or preferably someone that isn't Red Hat, given that Red Hat really hates their distro not being called open source.

Your claim that Someone can distribute RHEL to you, and then you can write to Red Hat by post and they'll send you the code back (for a charge), in compliance with Section 3(b) of the GPLv2 isn't based in reality. I'm providing you with a reliable source that is directly contradicting your unsourced claim. The Register says that Red Hat has decided to stop making the source code of RHEL available to the public. "Open source" means the source is openly available.

The OSI's definition of open source is that the license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. [4] As of right now, The Register says that RHEL's source will only be available to customers — who can't legally share it.

What you're saying should be seen as WP:Original research if you don't provide any citation. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chess Well that's the OSI definition. But this does demonstrate that this is a grey area with multiple (conflicting?) definition. Not all definitions agree that it can be free. Plus, The Register doesn't contradict that claim; while this is a primary source, the GPL doesn't limit price of giving to the public and allows people to redistribute for free. TL;DR: Choclei is right in saying that you are allowed to give the code to anyone for free after obtaining it by paying RedHat or getting it from somewhere else.

RHEL at least was an open-source distro. Since there is ONUS and we have sources from that time that establish it is open source, the ONUS actually falls on you to provide reliable sources that directly state RHEL isn't open source. Saying that "stop making the source code of RHEL available to the public" equals "not open source" is original research. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about WP:BURDEN, like the burden of proof is on those who claim RHEL is open source? If so, I actually think the burden of proof is on those who claim RHEL is not open source. The claim that RHEL is open source is verifiable and properly referenced in this article. That's the status quo. A new claim has been made ('RHEL is not open source anymore') and that is the one that needs to be proved now. Choclei (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem is, the RHEL ToS forbids redistribution of the source code and the binaries. Quetstar (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see my answer below. If, according to RH's EULA, RHEL is indeed under the GPL, then Red Hat is in violation of the GPL (though it's been argued that they aren't; see my first comment above). Violation of the GPL implies the software is open source under the GPL. Choclei (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

One thing I've just realised is that RHEL has to be open source for Red Hat to violate its licence, which I think makes things easier. Whether Red Hat complies with the GPL is irrelevant (if they don't it actually proves RHEL is open source). So we just need proof RHEL is under an open source licence -- I am not a lawyer, but it looks like it does as Red Hat's EULA grants end users the GPL, which is an open source licence. (By the way, it also explicitly allows redistribution as long as trademarks are removed, but that's not relevant as I said above.)

(Also, @Chess. I'm pinging you now, because I forgot to do it in my previous comment. Sorry about that.) Choclei (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The EULA you just cited only governs the use of RHEL. The purchase of RHEL licenses is governed by the Enterprise Agreement. I am not a lawyer, but after a quick analysis, it seems to be the TOS that forbids what i mentioned above. Also, RHEL isn't just under the GPL, many other components are under other licenses. Quetstar (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't find the terms of service... Aaron Liu (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I think i found the section in question, it's in this Appendix at Chapter 1.2, paragraph G. It is about "Unauthorized use of Subscription Services" Quetstar (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case it makes this even more grey, and it makes it even more violate the GPL. Either we find a reliable source that directly says it's not open-source, or we should just remove non-historical current mentions altogether. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see Section 1.4 in that same Appendix, which explicitly says, 'This Agreement establishes the rights and obligations associated with Subscription Services and is not intended to limit your rights to

software code under the terms of an open source license.' Choclei (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh, I retract my last remarks. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you please quote the relevant parts you found in their Enterprise Agreement? Choclei (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It's said on the parent page. Terms that govern the purchase and use of all Red Hat products and services. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• Since it's in question, I would start by removing any reference to open source entirely, and then working in what any reliable secondary sources say. If there are none, then leave it removed. SportingFlyer T·C 13:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think we should just tag the current ones with "dubious", add the controversy to the article, and leave historical references alone. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Tagging implies we should have a discussion on the talk page to resolve the tag. Maintenance tagging the article with Template:Dubious (or better yet Template:Disputed) might be a good idea before this RFC is done, but it's not a long term solution. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

We need sources. A Techcrunch news article about SUSE forking RHEL says, 'When Red Hat changed how CentOS is being developed, it suddenly became much harder for Rocky and Alma to get access to the RHEL source code, which is open source.' To counter that reference we need a source that says RHEL isn't open source. If a source says that RHEL is violating the GPL, it just proves the software is GPL and open source. Choclei (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

While I'd say GPL=open source is original research especially when it is said to not be conforming to it, I agree for the rest. The onus actually falls on those who claim it isn't. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I agree to this. However, I understand that if someone redistributes the code, which is under the GPL and other licenses. Red Hat can terminate that user's subscription for breaching the TOS and thus shut off their access to the code, as well as any RHEL updates. Quetstar (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, the GPL does not grant users the right to updates. Besides, everything you said has always been the case. RH's ToS haven't changed and the GPL is still in effect even if you don't have a subscription. The only thing that has changed is that RHEL's source code isn't available to everyone anymore, but the GPL doesn't say it has to be. Most importantly, reliable sources say that despite this change, RHEL is still technically open source.

What sources say RHEL has become 'source available'? We should first collect and review them, and then reach a consensus on whether we should keep RHEL's description of open source software. Choclei (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The SFC has published this article that describes the potential compliance issues that come with this change. Quetstar (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That's technically a primary source, and it doesn't explicitly say it's not open-source either. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It does seem like the SFC is taking a stand against Red Hat, but the problem I have with that article is that they don't really say whether their business model does or doesn't comply with the GPL. Also, it seems like they take issue with RH from long before this whole controversy began. They seem to say that, regardless of whether these recent changes comply with the GPL or not, this is just one of the many instances where Red Hat has made decisions that are against the open source spirit, if not outright violations of the GPL.

Here are some quotes I find relevant to this discussion.

• IBM's Red Hat definitely deserves credit for so carefully constructing their business model such that it has spent most of the last two decades in murky territory of “probably not violating the GPL”.
• Perhaps the biggest problem with a murky business model that skirts the line of GPL compliance is that violations can and do happen — since even a minor deviation from the business model clearly violates the GPL agreements.
• That said, the business model as described by IBM's Red Hat may well comply with the GPL — it's just so murky that any tweak to the model in any direction seems to definitely violate, in our experience.
• In a normal situation, with no mitigating factors, the fact that a company moved from distributing CCS publicly to everyone to only giving it to customers who received the binaries already would not raise concerns. In this situation, however, this completes what appears to be a decade-long plan by Red Hat to maximize the level of difficulty of those in the community who wish to “trust but verify” that RHEL complies with the GPL agreements.

I've also found a ZDNET article where Bradley M. Kuhn, the author of SFC's article, gives more of his opinion on the matter. The article says, Does Red Hat violate Linux's core intellectual property (IP) license, the Gnu General Public License version 2 (GPLv2)? Kuhn won't go that far. But he is worried that Red Hat has "moved from distributing [source code] publicly to everyone to only giving it to customers who received the binaries already." In short, Red Hat's "murky business model skirts the line of GPL compliance." Also, The author of the ZDNET article (not Kuhn) says, As I see it, Red Hat is not violating the letter of the GPLv2, but it is violating its spirit.

In the end, I don't think this is enough for changing RHEL's description from 'open source' to 'source available', especially because there are sources that say it's open source but none that say it's source available. Choclei (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

But does "compliance with the GPL" necessarily mean "open-source"? I don't think it does, and none of the sources say so. Most of this discussion centers around an assumption that GPL = open source but Red Hat has found what reliable sources describe as an ability to violate the spirit of the GPL. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chess: I do think so. Wikipedia defines open source software as computer software that is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose. The GPL is one such license.

Also, Techcrunch explicitly says RHEL is open source. Is there any source that says RHEL is source available (or not open source) because it violates the spirit of open source, despite complying with the GPL? Choclei (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Choclei: We don't usually use Wikipedia definitions to settle RfCs, we use what third-party sources say. Also, you should link the TechCrunch article that you mention. Quetstar (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't usually use Wikipedia definitions to settle RfCs, we use what third-party sources say. And what do they say? Do they say one is required to adhere to the spirit of the licence even if they comply with the licence? It doesn't look like it.

According to the Open Source Initiative's FAQ, The internationally recognized Open Source Definition provides ten criteria that must be met for any software license, and the software distributed under that license, to be labeled “Open Source software.” Only software licensed under an OSI-approved Open Source license should be labeled “Open Source” software.

Further in their FAQ, you can find the following: Is <SOME PROGRAM> Open Source? Only if it uses one of the approved licenses, and releases appropriate software. The requirement seems to be pretty clear and simple and it looks like RHEL meets it.

Also, you should link the TechCrunch article that you mention.

It's the article linked in my top-level comment. Let me quote the article again: When Red Hat changed how CentOS is being developed, it suddenly became much harder for Rocky and Alma to get access to the RHEL source code, which is open source.

At this point I don't think this RfC has much ground stand on. I mean, what else is needed? Choclei (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Then you're free to go elsewhere. Quetstar (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Choclei said that this RfC has no ground, that's why I said that. Quetstar (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they mean that the argument of source available has no ground. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Then i propose that this RfC be closed. Quetstar (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

We should have a consensus with @Chess first Aaron Liu (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been swayed. I don't like it but that's what the sources say. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

re: to TechCrunch, apologies, I missed that one. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References