This is confusing, why post this now even though this is nearly 3 week old news. And why not at least add a summary of all that has happened since in terms of reactions from Rocky, Alma, Oracle, SuSE and the various opinions on how the RHEL license clause restricts GPL freedoms and why use the misleading term ‘closed source’ that has been widely criticized in the comments to the original article?

The article you linked even explains that this move is in compliance with the GPL.

If people think the GPL’s loophole of allowing source to only be distributed to those receiving the binaries and agreeing to non-distribution terms is a problem, then the problem lies with the GPL.

As for if Red Hat is a bad guy here…

OSS needs alternate monetization in the future if things like this would be avoided.

Personally, I’m a big fan of interested parties paying for the production of software (or media, etc) upfront and then the produced thing being available freely.

Should we ever see models move to something like that, then in that ecosystem suddenly closing source is clearly more of a bad guy move.

Here, the article you link straight up has a line about the current model allowing downstream repackaging to deliver effectively the same product without paying Red Hat. It was likely only a matter of time for them to make a move like this.

All that said, I personally would never build a product on top of Red Hat’s source for anything moving forward given the potential for further decisions along these lines blowing it up later on. But as someone who was never doing that to begin with, it costs little to commit to.

This is misinformation. RHEL is still open source

RH Closing source code and adding telemetry to Fedora made me go back to Arch. Can’t trust these people

and what is the community’s response to SuSE’s decision to hard-fork?