IBM probably disagrees and as much as people expected RH to show IBM how to work, I think history is repeating itself and things are happening as they always did.

Your comment dances around the point so avidly that it’s un-understandable to me. How have things been happening, and why would they happen, now, at Red Hat?

Allow me to spell it out: if IBM could guarantee themselves a maintenance or growth of market share in the short-term while simultaneously clamping down on licenses that are anything but closed-source, they would. iBM didn't buy redhat because they think it's doing things the "right way". They bought redhat because they thought they could make money with it.

Appreciate it

I understand why it's tempting to buy into this narrative but it is just not the case.

Aside from the fact that IBM had no involvement in the recent decision relating to git.centos.org (if I remember correctly, IBM found out about it when it was publicly announced), IBM has had basically zero influence on any aspect of Red Hat open source development or project or product licensing policy.

On the other hand, Red Hat has had some limited influence on IBM's open source practices. For example, IBM has moved away from using CLAs for its open source projects, I believe mainly out of a desire to follow Red Hat's example. I'm not aware of any use of copyright assignment by IBM projects.