That's pretty normal. MSDN subscriptions have the same restriction. If a production system is needed, an full license needs to be purchased.
just brew it! wrote:
That seems like a pretty weak justification; if you know you need to remain 100% compatible with the upstream, you don't add 3rd party repos.
I find this all the more odd given that Redhat is now officially sponsoring CentOS. Why launch a free developer version of RHEL that directly competes with one of CentOS' use cases?
Well, the CentOS repo structure isn't exactly the same as RHEL repos. Some things that are included with CentOS are extra cost options on RHEL or require specific "entitlements" to be assigned to the license. Working with RHEL is a little different.
CentOS is more of a playground for doing experimental stuff with RHEL now. They're actively pushing people to extend and build systems on CentOS. Lots of stuff is being built on Ubuntu, and to counter that, Red Hat sponsors CentOS and positions it as a long-term, stable version of Fedora. CentOS has gotten more cool stuff, and been the basis for cool stuff, since RH took over, and that is all part of the plan.
The flow is use CentOS as a basis for cool stuff, and then migrate the cool stuff over using the RHEL dev license. Developers being developers probably brought in random libs and/or updated libs via compilation or third-party repos for one reason or another. This gives RH an easy avenue for people to integrate their stuff back into the RHEL ecosystem.
It's all in service of RHEL gaining mindshare.