I don’t really follow the GNU or open source community, but from what I’ve read, the arguments kind of make sense, or not? I mean, if what Rocky and Alma does is just repackaging RHEL and then selling it, then I understand the Red Hat’s reaction of not making it easier for them.

I suppose there are nuances that I don’t know, so can anyone explain it please? If I was making a product that I open sourced and mantained, I also probably wouldn’t be happy that there are people who are simply rebranding and selling it themselves, especially if they are not improving it.

Or, is the main issue in the fact that it’s build on top of Linux that has to be open source, and Red Hat has slowly transitioned into just paywalling it, even though the original license says that they can’t do that? And while Rocky and Alma were just repackaging and rebranding it, which would under other circumstances be heavily frowned upon in the FOSS community, they were doing so exactly because of that - because RHEL has been actively trying to paywall the distrbution, even though they really can’t do that due to the Linux license they have build it on?

Just to make sure I understand the situation - RHEL is a product sold and solely? developed by Red Hat, but is built on top of community developed open source Linux - which means that they have the obligation to release sources, but the only way how to actually install and use it is to build it yourself or buy it from Red Hat. Because of this paywall, Rocky and Alma has decided to start repackaging it on their own, to give it back to the community. But Rocky is also selling it? Or are they only selling support for it, but release builds for free?

The FOSS Linux community is confusing.