The terms of the GNU General Purpose License do not allow the source to be restricted in any way. The Linux kernel is licensed under GPL v2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html AFAIK, most of the rest of the GNU operating system (colloquially known as "Linux", although Linux is actually just the kernel) is licensed under GPL v3 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
-- Tom Marchant On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 07:03:05 +0000, Ian Worthington wrote: >Is this correct? My understanding is that the source is still available but >now only to customers in order to prevent downstream suppliers from using rhel >as their base. >Of course I've slept since I saw this discussion so caveat emptor... > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 02:47:32 AM GMT+2, Jon Perryman > <jperr...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> IBM RHEL announced it's move to closed source (IBM RedHat Enterprise Linux). >> With some changes, DB2, RACF and other z/OS products could run in Linux on >> z16 in one sysplexed Linux image. We know it's possible because IBM moved >> Unix and TCP into z/OS. IBM RHEL said closed source would force non-paying >> customers to buy RHEL licenses but this makes no sense. Something else must >> be in play. >>I created a survey at https://forms.gle/ZTPXsDJo8Z4H93sv7 to gain insights >>into IBM's decision to close source RHEL. You can skip the survey if you >>don't want to take it and view the survey results through this website. Feel >>free to pass this along. >> I think IBM wants to integrate z/OS products to retain their investments and >>expand their customer base.. >>Why is the z/OS community ignoring IBM RHEL closed source? Are software >>vendors preparing their products for Linux?
