AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change

AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change

Talking about "control" over Red Hat is a difficult one to pin down - if I pay Red Hat for support, is that sufficient to give me "control", given that I can use my subscription to direct Red Hat to work on a specific problem for me?

It gets more complex with a consultancy like Collabora, too - I can pay them to work on any OSS problem, pretty much.

Depending on "reasonableness" for duration is also dangerous; you run the risk that one court rules that it's unreasonable for you personally to have taken down your mirror of source code 25 years after you last distributed a binary, because you should reasonably have known that BigCo depended on that mirror to meet their compliance requirements, while a different court rules that it's unreasonable to expect BigCo to keep their mirror up for more than the minimum specified time after deploying to production, since they've deleted the service that used the binary.

Also note that your reading doesn't matter, as the granter of a licence; if a licence is unclear, then in many jurisdictions, the courts are supposed to interpret it in favour of the person relying on it, not you. You need the licence text to be clear, so that the court has only one interpretation to choose from

I would, personally, change it to say that if you distribute or Deploy a binary, you must ensure that the "corresponding Source Code" (to steal language from the GPLv2) is publicly available for a minimum of 24 months after the last distribution or the time when the binary is deleted from production. That sets a nice clear requirement for compliance, biases people towards longer distribution times not shorter ("I think we've removed the binary from production - let's keep the source up, just in case") and has no wiggle room in it that a shell game can play with.