This makes the false assumption that a CEO would make every decision in the company, but I'll humor this anyway. If this were to happen, Fedora would lose Red Hat's sponsorship. There have been a number of community discussions detailing the friction that contributors have already had with Red Hat, some even left after they privatized the RHEL source code. Some are looking for any reason to stop because they dislike Red Hat. This simply would not fly, and you'd see contributors leaving en masse. Similar discussions have been echoed by contributors before, and I don't expect volunteers to stay around and work for a project that they couldn't trust to uphold the interest of the community anymore. Both Fedora and Red Hat would be immensely damaged, and Red Hat would have to spend far beyond the amount that they spend sponsoring Fedora to hire new contributors so that RHEL can be maintained, as Red Hat does not have the resources to maintain RHEL without the Fedora community. This would be career suicide for the CEO, and given how much Red Hat relies on Fedora, the threat would be empty in any case. It does not benefit Red Hat to destroy the project fueling their enterprise distro. RHEL already modifies Fedora substantially, as it does not share the same design principles, and Fedora does not actually reflect the direction of RHEL. Even if this were to happen, the answer to all of the "but what if?" questions is the same: you can switch distros. Things like this make waves in this community; it wouldn't go unnoticed, especially given how popular Fedora is. It's the same situation with any distro. "But what if they run out of money and development suddenly slows to an unreasonable pace?" Switch distros. Speculating about situations like this is not constructive. You can speculate unlikely situations for any distro you choose, and be caught in an endless loop of irrational "but what if?" questions. The answer, as with all things Linux, is the same: fork it, or find an alternative. Money isn't going to appear out of nowhere, so the reality is that the Fedora Project (or the fork of it following this) would have to rely solely on community donations, or perhaps try to secure a sponsorship from another company (like Amazon, which uses Fedora as a base for their distro iirc). Worst case scenario: Fedora dies and you install a different distro. I don't really see the point in asking these kinds of questions.

The only reason that the Fedora Project exists is for community development. There is simply nothing Red Hat could ever stand to gain from changing that model, as they'd lose the entirety of what they are paying for by sponsoring the project. In order to do anything, they'd first need to dissolve FESCo, which would make HUGE waves across the internet. You and anyone else in the community would see news and posts about it immediately. Once that happens, the project dies. Community members are not going to contribute to a project that betrays their trust, after all. So in trying to change anything, the only thing Red Hat would be doing is moving a project that they are paying a relatively small amount of money for (relative to the number of contributors) from community developed to Red Hat developed. That means that they have to personally invest money into maintaining and employing contributors themselves, completely defeating the point of Fedora existing in the first place. If they wanted to privately fund development, why wouldn't they instead do it in RHEL, or CentOS Stream?

Let's analyze Red Hat's current gains from Fedora one by one:

1. Fedora is a place for Red Hat to test new features before they move to RHEL.

This requires an active userbase, and by privatizing or taking over the project, that userbase would rapidly diminish. Red Hat cannot increase this benefit by any means, other than by leaving the project be as is.

2. Fedora is community developed, so Red Hat can benefit from commits made by the community (people they don't pay).

Privatizing or taking over the Fedora Project would immediately end that community development. There's nothing in this respect that Red Hat could possibly intend to gain from such an action.

3. Red Hat's image appears better by sponsoring a community developed project.

It should go without saying that their image would only be damaged if they tried to modify their current relationship.

These are the things that Red Hat is paying for by sponsoring the Fedora Project. A hostile takeover would have exactly zero potential gain and very high potential losses in each of these categories; thus it doesn't make sense in the slightest.

Now let's analyze some new potential gains that Red Hat could get by a hostile takeover:

1. Monetizing Fedora.

This is Linux we're talking about, attempting to sell a consumer Linux distro for money will not fly, and no one will buy it. After all, even when enterprises by RHEL licenses, they aren't paying for the software itself. What they're really paying for is the support package and direct hotline to Red Hat for any technical difficulties. Red Hat makes its money by offering support services, something that does not have any realistic market for the general populace, especially considering the userbase we're talking about are Linux users.

2. That's really it.

There's just nothing else Red Hat would even stand to gain from any hostile takeover. The only potential motive is money, and Fedora is not a product that will ever generate them revenue. Consumers don't want to purchase licenses, and enterprises don't want consumer desktop distros with 6 month release cycles.

Red Hat funds Fedora because it is of great benefit to them to keep it alive, and continue its development by the community. Changing their relationship with the Fedora Project would not only lose the exact benefits they are receiving, but also cost them money, as they will no longer have thousands of community members volunteering their work, and they would have to hire contributors to fill that gap. Additionally, why even bother speculating? It isn't difficult to move distros nowadays, so if anything ever were to change, you can jump ship on any day of the week to another distro. We seem to live in a world where logic is challenged by a thousand "but what if?" statements that have no basis in reality. It's quite a pointless endeavor, honestly. What if the distro you choose gets bought out by Google, or Microsoft? What if the distro you choose is secretly funding antisemitism with donation money? What if the distro you choose suddenly dies? These are all absurd questions to speculate on, all to no real end. They each have the very simple solution of "just install a different distro if that happens". But what if a company tries to exploit a distro for money? There's no point in even speculating that because there isn't even any money to be made from consumer desktop distros. The money to be made from Linux is not in the consumer desktop platform, it is in the realm of businesses (enterprise software, embedded systems). There are far too many free options out there owned by nonprofits to ever consider marketing a consumer Linux distro like that. Even with stuff like Ubuntu Pro, you aren't paying for a license to the distro; you're paying for extra support.

Why are we treating Red Hat like the most evil company in the world, anyway? As far as tech companies go, they're pretty damn ethically sound. They're not nearly as bad as Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, IBM, or any number of other tech companies that release proprietary software with no access to source code, massively violate their users privacy, exploit consumers in harmful ad campaigns, etc. Google, one of the most unethical companies in the world owns Android, but we still have AOSP, which is the foundation for custom ROMs like GrapheneOS and LineageOS. If they believed that trying to shut down AOSP would make them money, they would have tried it years ago. Of course, doing so wouldn't even be legal, as it would be violating GPL.

I'm just not seeing what exactly you're imagining Red Hat could take away from Fedora for their own gain. Nothing they could do that would have a negative effect on users would result in a gain for Red Hat, as they'd be losing everything they gain from the Fedora Project. In order to make any changes to the development of Fedora, they either have to pay developers to make those changes, or convince community members to do it for them (which is not going to happen if these changes are negative), and that's assuming that they manage to dissolve FESCo to get these malicious changes approved.

You don't want to rely on a project that's funded by corporations? Where do you think the funding for the Linux Foundation comes from? Companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and IBM fund the Linux Foundation, so any OS that uses the Linux kernel will be financially dependent on corporations. That's something you're never going to be able to avoid.

I don't understand why this has been blown so far out of proportion. What's the point in excluding a very good distro that suits your needs perfectly over a fear that some day, somehow, in the indeterminate future, that there would be some new financial incentive created out of thin air that would cause Red Hat to try to take over Fedora? What guarantees that same situation or one similar wouldn't happen to any other distro you could choose? And to that end, why would Red Hat take over Fedora instead of creating a new fork that they could sell so they can still get all those benefits of community development? I don't see how any financial incentive created by Fedora wouldn't be possible to gain downstream.