This is simply not true: it's explicitly not the intent of the GPL, and furthermore the GPL is clearly a contract which explicitly spells out its intent, not a vague document whose spirit needs to be interpreted.
It is explicit in the freedoms it grants you, one of which being the freedom to distribute copies. The intent is pretty clear. The RH workaround to that is that if you exercise this freedom, they will not do business with you in the future. You got to exercise your freedom, but only once. The GPL doesn't have recourse for that.
You can redistribute the source, and that's what really matters. No one ever made any claims to redistributing binaries, and that's neither the letter nor the spirit of th GPL.
The GPL is about user freedom, which relies on source code. The whole thing came about because Richard only had access to binaries for that printer.
And it makes sense that RedHat wouldn't want you to distribute their binaries...who's to say you didn't backdoor them? That's their name on the line, too.
"Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so.
.....
The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. "
Free software binaries are freely redistributable. Source code need not be provided with binaries as long as there is offered method on how to get the sources. Thus free software binaries can be copied and distributed as many times as one wishes, and without source code, as long as there is access to source code, for example, by writing a letter with the request or by providing the download link.
It should be same source code by which binaries have been made.