Comment by senfiaj
21 hours ago
In this case yes, but on the other hand Red Hat won't publish the RHEL code unless you have the binaries. The GPLv2 license requires you to provide the source code only if you provide the compiled binaries. In theory Meta can apply its own proprietary patches on Linux and don't publish the source code if it runs that patched Linux on its servers only.
RHEL source code is easily available to the public - via CentOS Stream.
For any individual RHEL package, you can find the source code with barely any effort. If you have a list of the exact versions of every package used in RHEL, you could compose it without that much effort by finding those packages in Stream. It's just not served up to you on a silver platter unless you're a paying customer. You have M package versions for N packages - all open source - and you have to figure out the correct construction for yourself.
Can't anyone get a RHEL instance on their favorite cloud, dnf install whatever packages they want sources of, email Redhat to demand the sources, and shut down the instance?
RHEL specifically makes it really annoying to see the source. You get a web view.
This violates the GPL, which explicitly states that recipients are entitled to the source tree in a form suitable for modification -- which a web view is not.
2 replies →
Don't forget RH is owned by IBM.
Honestly just hearing this makes me want to get all their binaries, request the code, scrape it with OCR and upload it somewhere
1 reply →