Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Robin Edser

@gamingonlinux they don't contradict to me if taken in the context of the whole blog post.

The first is referring to simply repackaging and rebranding a project then presenting it as your own. In other words what all this fuss is about.

The second refers to the relationship between RedHat and Fedora, or Ubuntu and Debian. Building on, improving and contributing back.

4 comments
Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

@fossrob but if the code is open source and the licensing allows it, repackaging and reusing is all in the entire spirit of open source

Creating a fight between upstreamd and downstreams is not going to help anyone.

Liam @ GamingOnLinux ๐Ÿง๐ŸŽฎ

@fossrob But as said elsewhere by me: theyโ€™re not actually doing anything wrong with their changes

Robin Edser

@gamingonlinux well yes. It would be great if none of this were necessary though and RHEL was simply available for free (with optional paid support like Ubuntu). But let's be honest, Ubuntu is only in recent years finally starting to be profitable after more than a decade running at a loss. Would they have made it this long without a billionaire benefactor all those years? ๐Ÿคท I'd rather Red Hat remain a successful business and continue to do the good it does.

Robin Edser

@gamingonlinux well, the nuance (to me at least) is that just "repackaging and reusing" as is, *in it's entirety without adding any value* is not in the spirit of or healthy for open source.

And in this case sadly, a lot of the RHEL clone distributions do it purely for profit. Is anyone criticizing this because they feel sorry for Oracle Linux?

Go Up