Live by the sword, die by the sword. Red Hat can develop a closed-source OS and sue people who copy it, but then no one would use their product. If one of your major selling points is open source, not to mention benefiting from all of the non-RH developed code that is in RHEL, you can't complain about the perfectly predictable consequences of that.
RH publishes all their sources (including the MIT/BSD/etc ones that they don't have to publish). They're the very opposite of "closed source". I don't know of them suing anybody. And nobody is complaining about people using the code, or about the existence of Rocky or Alma or any other rebuild distros.
You are confused. Read my comment again. I’m just saying, if you don’t want people cloning your software and competing with you for support contracts, then don’t make it open source. It’s absurd to make your product open source, use open source as a marketing point, incorporate millions upon millions of lines of other peoples code into your product, and then complain when people do exactly what your open source license gives them the right to do.
And you literally said:
>I personally find that gross and unethical, but that's just my opinion.
