Final thoughts on the Red Hat thing: every supporter of the Red Hat move told me that "it's normal to want to prevent people from stealing the hard work and making a clone of it".
If you think grabbing the code and reusing it is "stealing", you don't understand FOSS.
No matter what RH clones contribute, or if they're worth it. That's not the point. The point is, RH builds their stuff using the GPL, and they have to redistribute using the GPL.
Making access to a specific part of that code harder on purpose goes against the principles of Free Software.
Period. Money doesn't factor into this, value, contribution, they don't matter. FOSS is free to use, whether you contribute or not. FOSS is for everyone, "freeloaders", developers, anyone. That's the very point.
Yes, the code is still technically available with a bit more work in Stream's repos. That's not the issue. The "people are stealing from us" talk is the issue.
When a company that works in FOSS, and depends on it to operate, calls people using their GPL rights "freeloaders", you know they've lost the plot.
That's the problem. The value, the contribution, the development, the clone or not, the business: it DOESN'T MATTER.
@jumper775 @thelinuxEXP I consider myself on the RH side of things in this but I can understand peoples dissatisfaction.
What gets me is RH has 2 upstream fully open distros, 1 downstream that is free to use but licensed via an account wall. Contributes upstream first, but they make cloning their tree more inconvenient and the community cries that they're suddenly anti-open source.
The likes of SUSE and Canonical are no better in rebuilding their commercial offerings, yet RH is the bad guy..
Nick @ The Linux Experiment
Jumper775
GNU/Matt 
