[GordonS]

I think you're missing the point. Nobody would argue that CentOS doesn't make sense - the argument is that it doesn't make sense if RHEL owns it, as there is a clear conflict of interest.

[Arnt]

I assumed that RH hired those people because CentOS might be a threat if owned by someone else, whereas if RH owned it, CentOS would be a moat.

Ie. CentOS takes those users who won't pay, RH takes those who will, RH controls both and there's no niche for anyone else.

Evidently I was wrong.

[smarx007]

I think that was supposed to be the case but then things like https://www.cloudlinux.com/extended-lifecycle must have upset someone at RH. Support past EOL has been traditionally a high-margin activity for vendors. And it must be so if https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25432183

[UMetaGOMS]

I think you might be replying to the wrong comment, as this doesn't really relate to my point at all.

I don't disagree with the sentiment that RHEL also controlling the free alternative doesn't make sense. I do disagree with repeated assertions that people can just use RHEL for free - for the most part, they can't.