Talk:Red Hat Enterprise Linux

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.

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^[1] - 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  : 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 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. 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)