[tremon]

We are only entitled to those part of the source code which is covered by copyleft licenses.

No, we're not. Even for code covered by copyleft licenses, we are only entitled to the source for which we have received a binary. However, once we have received those sources, we should be free to do with them whatever the license allows.

But that last part is what Red Hat is violating, and that's why some people have a deranged take, thank you very much: they use their sales contracts to specifically deny freedoms granted by copyleft licenses.

[babarock]

Think about it this way.

If you as a Red Hat customer redistribute the source code, Red Hat won't sue you. You didn't do anything illegal, you are doing what you are allowed to do.

Nothing in the GPL entitles you to future support from Red Hat, source code of future versions or anything of the sorts.

You're free to do whatever you want with the sources. Red Hat is free to stop business with you at any time. There's nothing contradictory here.

[kriberg]

No, this is conflation everybody is having. You are free to do with the received source as you like, maintaining your rights granted by the GPL.

But the GPL does not compel RedHat to keep you as a customer. There are two separate legal instruments, the license for the source and the terms for RHEL. RedHat are free to chose their customers. We can't force a company to take us on as a customer.

[account42]

You try to lawyer your way out of it as much as you want, it's still going to be a blatant violation of the spirit of the GPL if not the letter.