Comments by "Gilad Barlev" (@GSBarlev) on "The Red Hat RHEL Situation Looks Really Bad" video.

I get that it's not exactly a coincidence but it's still shocking to see all these companies suddenly competing to be the absolute worst. Suddenly, the Ubuntu Pro motd ads are looking a lot more palatable... 🤢
99
 @cameronbosch1213 But how much of RHEL is v3 as opposed to v2?
18
Which version, though? The Linux kernel is v2, and as I understand it this sort of shenanigans is exactly why v3 was written.
13
@cameronbosch1213 I think IBM's lawyers are arguing the other way around--if license-holders want to redis coreutils or any of the other GPLv3 bits, vaya con Dios but if anyone republishes the RHEL kernel, that's a permaban.
8
@zeyadkenawi8268 Yes, but for Alma and Rocky, losing even a single component (especially when that component is as important as the kernel) makes their projects nonviable. I don't think having one part of your OS licensed under v3 automatically means your whole project must be licensed under v3.
6
GPLv3 already prohibits this*. The issue (I suspect) is that there's enough of RHEL that's still v2 to prevent the entirety of RHEL from being redistributed by license-holders. *Clarification: I actually would have thought clause 6 in v2 would have prevented this as well, but I suspect this falls into the gray area that were clarified in the additional patent license guarantees added to v3.
3
@sirzorg5728 Oh, way ahead of you, comrade. I'm Arch+Pantheon on two machines now and Arch+Sway on a third. Though I still prefer deb-based distros for servers.
2
@joshallen128 Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but the only way I see to solve this problem would be for GPLv4 to be explicitly incompatible with components that didn't cary the same end-user protections found under GPLv3. That means no Linux kernel, no WINE or Proton (LGPL), no scikit-learn (BSD 3-Clause). That means it's not happening.
1