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

I’m against

I’m not. I don’t think we’re going to change each other’s mind, so have a good one.

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

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.

Ok, but why is there even an agreement required to access to source to something, uh, open source?

IBM sucks. They have bought up a bunch of small data centers and made them worse.

I’m still pissed about CentOS as well. Long live Rocky.

I thought this was the new CentOS logo.

As an admin, I prefer no swap on prod machines because I’d rather have the oom killer kill a process that will automatically be brought back up or replaced than grind everything to a crawl swapping. A dead process can be restarted. A swapped to death server can be challenging to even get into.

Oh geeze, that format drives me nuts. Is there a tldr?