I explicitly tried to put out "god" and "bad" from the discussion but OK, let's do that.
Red-Hat main worry is to be profitable. That's is above any other concern.
You can be sure that, if their bottom line was threatened, they will be pushed, in order to survive, to change their business model and they will not be beyond behaving in a "bad" (but legal) way if they don't see other way around the problem.
If fact, we can argue, that Red-Hat management, being it a public company, is forced by law to do that.
Red-Hat main worry is to be profitable. That's is above any other concern.
You can be sure that, if their bottom line was threatened, they will be pushed, in order to survive, to change their business model and they will not be beyond behaving in a "bad" (but legal) way if they don't see other way around the problem.
If fact, we can argue, that Red-Hat management, being it a public company, is forced by law to do that.
You're acting as though nobody who works at Red Hat cares about the community which they worked with before they had a job at Red Hat. I work at SUSE, and I work primarily as a member of a community. If SUSE started mistreating their customers or the wider community I would quit.
I hope that if you found that your company was mistreating the wider community you would also quit.
--
My point is not that "all companies are good". I'm saying that making a judgement that "all companies will harm free software at the end of the day" ignores the fact that companies still need humans to work for them that do said contributions. Personally I find that many people who work in free software have quite strong ethics when it comes to things like this, but that's just my anecdote.
I have no idea how Red Hat or SUSE would act, maybe they would be an exception, and, maybe, very ethical workers could keep some companies in check.
In the other hand, I don't think that the idea of companies, in order to survive, will try anything (legal), should be so polemic.
I don't know where this view comes from, it was Stallman's goal from day one that it should be possible to have companies built around free software. The fact that my first job out of high school was working at a free software company should be celebrated as a huge accomplishment by the wider community. But it's not seen that way. I find it quite disheartening, because I've always been an advocate for free software and my job title doesn't suddenly change that.
I realise that you're not saying that (and so I'm sorry for the strong response), and of course we must question the motives of companies. But it's become a popular game these days to pretend as though everything that a free software developer does as part of a job must be part of a conspiracy to create a monopoly -- it's ludicrous and is quite grating.
I think people are interested in their basics, income, job, family before any other priorities.
Some people infact become so paranoid about this they may overlook even support unethical action as long as they are safe.
Surveillance, profiling and dark patterns by leading SV companies including Google, Facebook, Palantir etc composed of tens of thousands of engineers who may at one time have loudly proclaimed contrary values is just one example of this.
The comparison isn't as appropriate, as Oracle is a much bigger company, and is able to handle the loss of that many people in a better way. But the jist is similar.
That was the result, they tried to mistreat the OpenSolaris community and then Oracle no longer was competitive in the Solaris space.
If you want to learn more, check out bcantrill's talk. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc
You could argue that, but you would almost certainly be wrong. It is a myth that management at a company is always required to seek profit above everything else. Indeed, many companies explicitly do not do this, for example by having policies about operating in an environmentally friendly way for ethical reasons.
I'm not saying that companies have to search profit above everything, I am saying that it's its main concern, otherwise they will not survive.
Indeed, management will have space to be nice when things go well, but they, automatically, will receive pressures from investors to change their nice ways when things go bad.
This is the way that it's intended to work and there is, I think, nothing surprising there.
There's a difference between short-term and long-term profitability. Being 'nice' might limit profits in the short term but might be crucial for long-term survival.
And, nobody knows for sure what the correct long-term strategy is. Not every step that yields an immediate profit is a step in the right direction.