Thankfully I'm not personally looking for this at the moment, I'm more than happy being my own sysadmin and running anything from Arch to Fedora CoreOS to OpenSUSE on my machines.
Otherwise you're building on an operating system which rebuilds a commercial upstream while explicitly refusing to follow that upstream's rules. IBM has lots of experienced lawyers, as I've heard.
It's also slower at releasing updates, including security updates.
------
Sorry SSLy, I can't reply to you directly because I'm rate limited, it's very late here, and I'm not waiting for the rate limit to expire. So here's my reply:
I think previous decisions made by IBM have shown that they're fine at burning some community goodwill for short-term profit. People were called paranoid for worrying about the future of CentOS when it was taken up by Red Hat for "improved maintenance", and look where we are now.
Maybe you're right, but I personally wouldn't want to build anything serious on top of that "maybe". If something happens, lateral migration should theoretically work, of course..
Of course they could release the code just for the *GPL packages, but it's an option only slightly less bad socially.
Now, I wonder why there's no one rebuilding Ubuntu Pro like folks are rebuilding RHEL.