Freedom is the whole idea
So, the idea of what the above mistakenly calls, "giving it all away", is actually about making sure things live on in perpetuity.
What "lasts"? Proprietary IP decaying on a shelf in hopes of being leveraged in "a deal"? Or free software that is in use being maintained by motivated people that want to ensure it's continued use?
Actually, Red Hat's experiment in trying to prove that freedom is a bad idea actually proved the exact opposite.
As Red Hat closed down the sharing of GPL code changes made by people outside of Red Hat that, in their words, represented exploitation (that is they didn't want other to exploit "their work", when in actuality, it wasn't "their work" to begin with)... as they closed this down. What happened?
Did everyone give up on freedom? Did the freedom model die? Did we all cough up "IP bucks" to Red Hat as they now claimed to own "all code changes" as being solely "their own"?
No. That's not what happened at all. What Red Hat, IBM and other no believe (for whatever reason) to be true about FOSS was now proven to be a lie and freedom ruled instead.
What happened is that each and every one of the supposed "exploiting" companies that were using FOSS from Red Hat moved to alternative paths where freedom still rules. So, the world went on, FOSS went on and Red Hat's experiment with trying to make FOSS into traditional closed IP failed. Which is a good thing for freedom and a bad thing for Red Hat's reputation.
But Red Hat has been actively working on damaging their reputation now from many years. "Buying" FOSS, making a "good message" and then actively trying (and oddly enough partially successful) in trying to kill off the FOSS they purchased. Now, you may say, you can't kill FOSS, isn't that your point? The problem is Red Hat when they "buy all the people" behind a FOSS project can suppress freedom to the point where it struggles to survive. No, you can't kill off the source, Red Hat has just gotten really good at making FOSS developers effectively "die", and that hurts freedom overall.
Anyhow, I do hope all those (truly great) now "owned" by Red Hat projects continue on without Red Hat, since they (for whatever reason) decided to oppress them. Btw, not talking about RHEL cloning, talking more about things like RHV. I mean, would qemu/kvm be where it's at without Qumanet (Red Hat acquired them)? Guided by "marketing" and "corporate pressure", Red Hat abandoned their hypervisor stack at a time when we really "needed one". I have no idea why they did this. Good case of wondering where this might have gone if the ideas of freedom were used rather than attempts at destruction. So, oVirt? Has Red Hat oppressed you to the point of extinction? We'll see.
Anyway, from JBoss, to oVirt/RHV, to .... what will be next? XFS? LVM? Sure, all the code is protect by "freedom", but when the workers are oppressed, freedom does suffer a bit.
We could say, "we need a new leader". Sure. But maybe we just get another Red Hat, or possibly worse.
Long live developers that are not "under a thumb" and that still practice and believe in the power of freedom. Send your checks/support directly to those... and not to Red Hat (not anymore). Better yet, become a developer so as to fight for FOSS.
All I know is that if "survival" as a developer means being on the Red Hat payroll, we're doomed. FOSS isn't dependent on Red Hat, especially not anymore.