Jeff Geerling, writes on his blog:
Anyways, there’s more nuance to the entire debacle, but the main thing this
points to is the fact that while increasing revenue via licensing might not be
the only motive Red Hat had in this move, it was certainly a major factor. And
the downfall of Scientific Linux and CentOS makes those who’ve built their
careers or companies around Red Hat compatibility without paying the
subscription fees nervous.
I was quite surprised when Red Hat “adopted” CentOS – it seemed to me that they
were always hostile and against the latter to really succeed as it was, well,
not ideal for their business model. But Red Hat did (and still does) so many good
things for the open source community in general and GNU/Linux specifically that
it was fine to turn a blind eye. Personally I couldn’t care less, Red Hat or
its derivatives was never my first choice and my go-to distribution. Regardless
of this all, after acquistion by IBM, I lost hope that there will be anything
good coming out of it as a result. I worked for IBM and, pretty much, owe to
them my entire career. But I also know that the technical and
enterprise/business side of this company are two different worlds – quite often
opposed to each other.
Well, Elastic dealt with it by switching to a new license, which many in the
FOSS, or Free and Open Source Software Community, have decried as not being
truly open source.
Didn’t this entire relicensing drama start with MongoDB? Or was it Redis? Or all
of these? Does any of this actually matter? The point is that the large-scale
cloud providers and AWS especially are breaking their part of the deal. The real
problem though is different: there is no deal. There never was one. Either you
are open source and free and you allow for a free ride or you are not and you
don’t. That’s it. Relicensing and trying to play the open source card is simply
dishonest, even if it’s only to help with the business side of things – and
believe me, I’m first in line to cheer for open source success.