To call RHEL “closed source” is categorically untrue and inaccurate. CentOS Stream moves faster than RHEL, so it might not be on HEAD, but the code is there. If you can’t find it, it’s a bug – please let us know.

I’m not quite sure what the HEAD acronym (assuming it’s an acronym?) refers to there, but from context it sounds like the open source code won’t be available at first, but will come later? (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.) If that’s the case, to me that’s still closed source, albeit on a timer. Even if you can semantically argue that it’s open source because it eventually becomes open source, I’d say that’s still against the spirit in which open source was intended IMO.

Also…

I feel that much of the anger from our recent decision around the downstream sources comes from either those who do not want to pay for the time, effort and resources going into RHEL or those who want to repackage it for their own profit.

This is one that always irks me on a personal level, and I’ve seen it come up several times when people enter the open source space (where the idea is that your code is open and free to use), then turn around and blame the community for “not wanting to pay”, especially when it’s something that was previously free and open, and which people are using and relying on, which is abruptly removed and has a price tag slapped on it.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too - you don’t get to take the credit for being cool and open source, and then also boot people out of it for money like you’re proprietary software.