On 27/06/2014 23:16, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 06/27/2014 05:26 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:
>> The cessation of SRPM distribution in general to non-customers, which
>> is the specific issue at hand here, is a new issue that has new
>> considerations to take into account. Whilst it has similarities to the
>> kernel issue in 2011 it also goes further. 
> 
> The SRPM issue is not a new one, either.  Try to find the EUS sources,
> for instance.  Or, to go to another, different, distribution, let's find
> the SuSE Enterprise Linux Server SRPMS, the updates of which have been
> only available to subscribers for, to the best of my knowledge, at least
> ten years. You certainly won't find SRPMS in a quick skim of
> ftp.suse.com.  (The latest SLES download is SLES 11 SP3, from July of
> 2013, nearly a year ago.  I know that there are security updates since
> then, but where are they for non-subscribers?  Where is the source for
> the updates for non-subscribers?  I'd love to find it so I could add
> another supportable OS for my SGI Altix IA64 boxen).
> 
> This is not a new issue.  See Dag's take on it from 2007 at
> http://dag.wiee.rs/blog/why-is-there-no-open-source-sles

I do take your point but two things occur to me:
a) It's new with Red Hat and that is what is causing problems here and now.
b) Even if it's not a new issue in general, that doesn't make it any
less of a problem. What has become common practice may not be defensible
just because it is common practice.


To make a not totally irrelevant comparison, it was overwhelmingly
common and widely accepted practice for banks and other financial
institutions in the UK to mis-sell payment protection insurance to
customers who took out loans or similar products. "Mis-sell" here means
to sell it to people who did not need it or could not use and/or to
trick people into thinking they had to accept it. This went on for years
and years. "PPI was mis-sold and complaints about it mishandled on an
industrial scale for well over a decade."[1] And then, finally, the
banking industry lost a court case and the government regular got round
to doing something about it. What had been totally accepted, barely
questioned, common practice was outlawed and improperly taken fees had
to be paid back.

I am not comparing the legal issues per se (since they are obviously
completely different) but the point I am making here is that just
because something is a longstanding pattern of behaviour does not mean
it is really legitimate or will last if eventually competently challenged.


Footnote:-
1: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13330858