This is simply not true: GPL requires you to share all code needed to build the binary you shipped including their minor patches. GPL also has a clause: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.".
The people the binary is shipped to can access it via weather means red hat provides. If red hat does not provide you a binary, they do not need to give you access to their code.
And here is the punchline. People don't pay Redhat to mess with the source code themselves, they pay Redhat so that they don't have to mess with it.
Yeah Red Hat does share all the code for customers who purchase binaries and they are not imposing further restrictions on recipients of those binaries with their EULA. If the EULA is violated Red Hat is simply exercising their rights to not distribute future binaries and source thus not violating the GPL clause you mention
And yet they promised to use blackmailing tactics to severe relationship with those customers who want to exercise their rights to the code and republish it.
Those terms hve been in the Red Hat enterprise license agreement for … 15? 20 years?
Nobody cared, in this case, until the git.centos.org sources were gone.