First, thank you for not resorting to name calling this time.

None of the Alma Linux and Rocky Linux users hit those servers, so they’re not taking anything away from Red Hat.

Here are RedHat's own words on users of source-rebuild distributions.

The generally accepted position that these free rebuilds are just funnels churning out RHEL experts and turning into sales just isn’t reality. I wish we lived in that world, but it’s not how it actually plays out. Instead, we’ve found a group of users, many of whom belong to large or very large IT organizations, that want the stability, lifecycle and hardware ecosystem of RHEL without having to actually support the maintainers, engineers, writers, and many more roles that create it. These users also have decided not to use one of the many other Linux distributions.

This is the perspective that is informing RedHat's decision making on the matter. It doesn't matter that you and I know the people using Alma and Rocky, and previously CentOS, won't switch to paid RHEL users if those options are gone.

You conflate two things: on one hand there is A: “being able to use a Linux distribution that’s binary compatible with RHEL”, on the other hand there is B: “having a support contract and access to technical support”.

I can see how you would see my comments as conflating the two. It was not my intention to do so.

I see no issue with A, “the software”, being free, and I see no issue with B, “the support”, being not free. This is how it has been since Red Hat came into existence, yet you’re telling me here that A shouldn’t exist.

I'm not saying they shouldn't exist, RedHat is saying that. I'm saying given RedHat's actions, I wouldn't want to be in the business of trying to fight with them to maintain a source-rebuild distribution or base my own business continuity on them being able to out-maneuver RedHat and continue to exist.

That’s a broken analogy. The existence of a free and legal alternative to RHEL doesn’t mean that Red Hat doesn’t get paid, it just means that a free alternative exists. But big businesses do love support contracts from big reliable vendors, so Red Hat does in fact get paid and their model is quite profitable.
On the other side: is Red Hat cutting a paycheck to all the contributors of the thousands and thousands of tools and utilities that go into RHEL?

It is a fact that big corporations like Canonical, RedHat, and Suse have historically paid full time developers to contribute to and maintain FOSS code. They have to have money to pay those developers. They can't make a reliable and predictable revenue stream on just the existence of the software itself, so they sell support contracts to pay for it.

On the other side: is Red Hat cutting a paycheck to all the contributors of the thousands and thousands of tools and utilities that go into RHEL?

No, and I never claimed anything close to that. But RedHat is among many Linux distributors who employ developers full time to contribute to and maintain FOSS projects.

Come on now, it’s the other way around. The enormous amount of free software development they have received from the community is what allows them to have this profitable commercial support model in the first place.

Indeed, hence why I think RedHat is ethically in the wrong here.

Yet you provide not a single convincing argument why that should be the case. What kind of artificial bs label is “enterprise” anyway? It’s just software, and whether it has a label of “enterprise” or “consumer” is irrelevant

I gave examples of what I perceive as enterprise support, you're free to think those things don't matter, but maybe tell me who does those things for free. Alma Foundation isn't some group of benevolent billionaires paying for everything out of their own pockets. If they weren't receiving donations (be they monetary or services) or revenue, they wouldn't be able to do what they're doing.

the only thing that determines whether or not it’s ok for it to be free is the license of the software, and so far the license says that it can be free.

Again, I agree. All the source-rebuild distributions have the right to exist. And if they feel it's worthwhile to pursue still , good for them and good luck.

I mean .. we all agree that RedHat is in the wrong here because the actions of the source-rebuild distributions are protected under the FOSS licenses. We have different reactions and hopes, but we all agree that RedHat is doing wrong. So I don't understand why you and Raphael are out here calling me an apologist who doesn't understand OSS.