Red Hat is happy to take your code and distribute it, first with minimal changes, and perhaps with more changes over time.
But if you do it, you are a leech.
Love that the Brodie here goes into gatekeeping what is considered a contribution:
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-source-response-gitcentosorg-changes
If you had the misfortune of reading the replies to my post, enjoy an explanation without corporate speak.
While the authors of this post need to walk a fine line to attempt to salvage their efforts, I have no stakes on this, and can tell you in black and white the answer to the last question is: yes, IBM and Red Hat are doing this to eliminate their competitors and extract more money from the market.
Time to pay rent:
That article is not a lie. It says Red Hat is no longer publishes the sources the way Alma consumed them.
The phrase "gating all its own contributions behind a subscription paywall" is a very different statement.
All RH contributions are public.
Even those RHEL patches, which go to minor-stream branches first and not land in the CentOS Stream directly, _must_ be brought into CentOS Stream before the next minor release of RHEL by the development policy.
The screenshot is not contradicting.
I am not talking about republishing sources acquired through the customer portal.
I say: Red Hat publishes all RHEL content via CentOS Stream Gitlab repositories. It doesn't just publish them, it also _develops_ that RHEL content via open MRs on GitLab.com
https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/glibc
Small subset of patches goes to the internal git and minor release of RHEL before landing in that GitLab repo, but it does land there later.
Sorry for pulling you into this.
But I think that I have the right to be plain and straightforward if someone repeatedly dismisses the attempts to discuss or explain things and then continues to make incorrect claims spreading the misinformation.
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
Max Steenbergen
Aleksandra Fedorova 
