On Monday, December 28, 2020 4:04 AM, Konstantin Boyandin via CentOS-devel <centos-devel at centos.org> wrote: > On 28.12.2020 07:50, Julien Pivotto wrote: > > > On 28 Dec 01:24, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: > > > > > On 12/27/20 3:48 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > > > > > > > Following your approach to a detailed information about the Stream, > > > > we've been told there are various RHEL subscription programs coming next > > > > year that would address use of RHEL for many existing CentOS users. > > > > Perhaps, those programs would address the needs of consumers of > > > > 3rd-party drivers too, before we'd reach the collaboration ideal I > > > > outlined above. Let's see how that goes. > > > > > > So you think Red Hat will offer no-cost subscription to a small 5-10 > > > employee company, not in any way related to education or non-profits, > > > that needs 1 CPU / 16-32GB RAM Linux server for mdadm RAID10 + Samba + > > KVM ? > > > This is a question for centos-questions at redhat.com not for this list. > > Methinks, the question was a rhetoric one. > > By the way, if anyone asks that question to centos-question@ and gets > a response - please share the knowledge. That still breaks up the chain of custody. Given Mike McGrath's call to action, it is important the answers be made publicly directly from a named employee of Red Hat. It isn't clear if responses from centos-questions will come from a person with a real name or come from a generic "centos-questions" account. Also, even if answers are copied to us verbatim, it isn't clear if Red Hat will later claim the person posting it paraphrased the answer or took it out of context. The 2014 statement that there would remain a firewall between CentOS and RHEL was to show the joining would operate in good faith. If you read Mike McGrath's statements carefully, it becomes clear Red Hat had no intention of honoring the foundational promises made to show good faith. It was simply just something to go "out of date." Therefore, Red Hat has no intention of openly demonstrating that the governance meeting was consistent with those foundational promises. We need to be thinking like lawyers for this point forward. An example of thinking like a lawyer, if a free clone is released calling itself White Hat then that is vague enough to cause brand confusion. Red Hat's trademark is not just on a single color or single item of clothing. It is a trademark on *ALL* colors and *ALL* items of clothing. Even "Socks Of Auqa" is not explicitly enough and will result in a strongly worded letter from a Red Hat lawyer. We need to be demanding the same level that things be explicit. They need to come direct from a specific person. They need to clearly state what the expirtation date of their claims will be. When possible the statements need to be published on Red Hat letter head and notarized. And they need to be posted publicly direct from the source. Based on what Mike McGrath has said, we aren't dealing with the Red Hat we knew and loved. We are dealing with a company that can silently expire any promise at any time just like any other enterprise. We are a long way now from having Bob Young and Marc Ewing to re-iterate that Red Hat is not like a normal enterprise and does not intend to be. I'm calling Admiral Ackbar on the centos-questions email address.