3 ms·
I'm just going based on their direct comments: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-source-response-gitcentosorg-changes https://www.redhat.c
by _ea1k 3y ago
I'm just going based on their direct comments: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-source-response-gitcentosorg-changes https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-sour...
"There was a time, not too long ago, that Red Hat found value in the work done by rebuilders like CentOS. We pushed our SRPMs out to git.centos.org in a neat package that made them easy to rebuild; we even de-branded it for them. More recently, we have determined that there isn’t value in having a downstream rebuilder."
These comments are explicitly about a focus on doing the things that directly drive revenue. Their actions correlate with their stated direction.
We can debate whether the direction is right or wrong for them (I'm explictly not making a judgment here), but the direction and intent are clear.
- dagmx 3y agoThat’s conflating things. Red Hat still continue to contribute to open source projects. Whether they are effectively maintaining components for another distro is besides the point. That does not make their direction or intent clear with regards to open source contributions
- _ea1k 3y agoI never said they stopped contributing to open source. But the emphasis on the bottom line is already having consequences. Do you think they will keep advancing spice as much as before now that they've deprecated it in their products? More wood into fewer arrows means just what it sounds like it means.