In the video, and in the blogpost that is effectively the transcript of the video, he clearly states that though locking away the source code is within IBM's or RedHat's rights.
What seems to have done it for him is, the subscription terms and conditions that prevent redistribution of source code by subscribers or else have the subscription revoked. This is what he argues as being borderline illegal and that RedHat could be banking on the army of lawyers on IBM's retainer.
And, knowing Oracle, what is to stop them from becoming a subscriber? That way, RedHat has a poster child of a subscriber, Oracle gets access to the code which they can and most likely will, with their own army of lawyers, repackage and publish as Oracle Linux. Admittedly this is my cynical take on Jeff's.
Time to start debating moving more projects under GPLv3 or AGPLv3 which demand more innovative ways to run a business than what IBM is doing.
When corporate entities infiltrate decentralized networks/platforms, they do it methodically with the intent to harm the decentralized platform in order to maintain the corporate monopoly.
If only there's some way to enforce a GPLv3 or AGPLv3 on every application that implements ActivityPub. Or something to prevent the walled garden effects that Twitter (on SMPP) and GChat (on XMPP) so masterfully used on open protocols. The siren songs of walled garden are too strong for too many especially when paired with marketing and advertising.
Jeff Geerling stops development for Redhat (www.youtube.com)
An exceptionally well explained rant that I find myself in total agreement with.
How to Kill Decentralized Networks (ploum.net)
When corporate entities infiltrate decentralized networks/platforms, they do it methodically with the intent to harm the decentralized platform in order to maintain the corporate monopoly.