But now that you've gotten to the point of having your own opinion and take: what is "the main issue" as you've mentioned here?
Which, of course, is untrue since Red Hat has stated several times, in the links I've posted above, that Red Hat are (a) STILL providing complete corresponding source code, which one will still receive when they are distributed a binary by Red Hat, and (b) FULLY complying with the terms of GPL and other FLOSS licenses.
These are the two issues that people are misrepresenting, by saying either that Red Hat is (a) locking-down or otherwise disallowing access to complete corresponding source for binary recipients, which is untrue, or (b) that Red Hat is not complying with the FLOSS licenses their software are used under, which is also not true.
The next issue that is raised, one that was mentioned by the Software Freedom Conservancy [1], is that Red Hat is somehow extorting their customers by either making them choose between exercising their GPL rights, or continuing to receive support.
[1]: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis...
Red Hat is free to terminate support with any of their customers--that is not a GPL issue. The transaction the GPL covers is: Red Hat gives (or sells) the user a binary, the user can request the complete corresponding source code (not need to be immediately provided with), and once requested then Red Hat must provide that code. That is the end of the transaction. The GPL does not cover any additional period, or force Red Hat to continue business with a particular user.
What exactly is the spirit of copyleft? I see this said a number of times, but it doesn't appear to be fully articulated.
Personally I consider GPL an _implementation_ of copyleft rather than copyleft itself.
> Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
> Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
The problem is that, as a downstream customer of that software, RH threatens to terminate my business contract with them if I exercise my own freedom to redistribute that software. It's completely in bad faith.
> With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. A high CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the software is free.
And so all these arguments, once all the misinformation is expelled, eventually boil down to this "it's in bad faith" schtick. Well, what is the faith of Rocky Linux when they are purveying a bug-for-bug clone of RHEL, selling support contracts on top of that, and directly competing with Red Hat's business?
Trick question, because "faith" doesn't matter. It's all legal, and these are businesses. They are making business decisions. If one thinks that some corporation--any corporation--owes "faith" or loyalty to their customers, then I got a bridge to sell you.
You're free to hate Red Hat--no one is forcing anyone to _like_ them--but I hope you have some substance somewhere within, and can articulate why.
If you don't think it is well past time to start forcing ethical behaviour on corporations... I don't know what to say to you.
I notice a certain country is fast tracking them to have human rights, like civic voting, but nothing at all about joining in responsible stewardship for our world.
In short, I've heard of people being generally annoyed by the change, which may be fair. I haven't heard too many people seriously trying to make the claim that what Red Hat is doing is illegal.