It only takes a single customer with a RHEL subscription to republish the source, so this is really just a middle finger out of spite to Centos competitors.
That is a violation of their terms of service and will result in a termination of your subscription unless I'm misreading it (section d):
Unauthorized Use of Subscription Services. Any unauthorized use of the Subscription Services is a material breach of the Agreement. Unauthorized use of the Subscription Services includes: (a) only purchasing or renewing Subscription Services based on some of the total number of Units, (b) splitting or applying one Software Subscription to two or more Units, (c) providing Subscription Services (in whole or in part) to third parties, (d) using Subscription Services in connection with any redistribution of Software or (e) using Subscription Services to support or maintain any non-Red Hat Software products without purchasing Subscription Services for each such instance (collectively, “Unauthorized Subscription Services Uses”).
https://www.redhat.com/licenses/Appendix_1_Global_English_20...
RHEL is obliged to provide source code for their GPL packages.
You ask for source code, you'll get it.
You distribute the source code, RH will terminate the contract with you because they don't want to see you as a customer anymore.
They're free to do business with whoever they want, peeking people who will not distribute RH sources.
Every party is in their right here. That's my understanding.
Red Hat did that for many years. They maintain extended support branches for RHEL which provide fixes for very old software. Those fixes AFAIK were never "leaked" despite the fact that every customer could receive it. If it was as simple as crowd-funding single subscription and then publish all the sources, someone would do it and we would have CentOS Extended LTS.
So the prohibition on "redistribution" in this context would be on the compiled binaries. i.e you could not pay for a subscription and then mirror the yum repos publicly.
They cannot sue you for redistributing the software, or claim damages because you did so. They can ABSOLUTELY tell you that your right to the subscription is terminated if you do so.
> Agreement establishes the rights and obligations associated with Subscription Services and is not intended to limit your rights to software code under the terms of an open source license
So if the preceding section 1.2(F) and 1.2(G) do prohibit redistribution of SOURCE CODE, then it is in fact limiting your rights under to software code under the terms of an open source license.
1.2(F) and 1.2(G) would limit your right to distribute "software" generally defined a complied code, but not source code.