>Of course, for GPL code, their customers could redistribute the source code.
The fact that the subscription agreement does not allow this is exactly what we're discussing here.
The fact that the subscription agreement does not allow this is exactly what we're discussing here.
There's nothing to discuss. What Red Hat is trying to do IS ILLEGAL and GPL explicitly grants the right to all their subscribers to gave RH the finger.
From GPL Section 8 "If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term."
It is obvious that the "subscription agreement which denies the right to redistribute" is a "further restriction" that GPL legally allows users to simply ignore.
Also Red Hat violating GPL is unquestionably clear from the Preamble: "To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others."
RH asking users to surrender their rights and revoking any subscription for redistributing is clearly violating its responsibilities as demanded by the GPL.
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and *will automatically terminate your rights under this License*. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
The entire point of the GPL is to let you own the software you have bought and, examine, learn and change.
The rule Red Hat have brought in is that if you exercise that right then they don't want to continue selling their software to you. That is totally within their rights, it's not like they are suing you for illegal distribution.
The intent of the GPL to allow distribution to third parties seems pretty clear, and a company refusing to deal with you after you exercised a right explicitly granted by the licence definitely seems like a 'dick move', despite being legal.