I tried to be clear in my original comment that I'm not displeased with this action of Red Hat, and that I view it as an issue with myself that I do these stran

I tried to be clear in my original comment that I'm not displeased with this action of Red Hat, and that I view it as an issue with myself that I do these strange numeric comparisons. I certainly don't blame Red Hat and I was very careful to avoid saying that Red Hat was obligated to donate anything to anyone, since I agree with you that they are not. Obviously my intent was not well-communicated in my comment. I apologize, but I don't really know how to make it better. :-( With all that said, those words still ring a bit hollow for me. If the person giving dimes to the homeless were to say, "hey, I wasn't obligated to donate anything to them," that still doesn't quite ameliorate the sheer numerical discrepancy, which is still the point where my brain goes, "wait... what?" Another comment did: it said, "oh, they're just talking about revenues, not profits." That's a much more important distinction. If Red Hat's costs are very high, then it might not be four dimes but four $100 bills. That's a much more substantial donation given what you got.