> Why is Red Hat obligated to release source code
They are not obligated to release source code to the public. But they _are_ obligated to put no restrictions whatsoever on redistribution (100% clone or not).
From the GPL: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License."
Red Hat is basically saying "We understand that the GPL allows you to redistribute our product as is. But, if you do, we will terminate our relationship with you.". IMO that is no different than a company saying "Yes, you have a statutory right for refunds within 30 days. However, if you exercise it, we will not sell you any products in the future.". That counts as a (indirect) restriction in my book.
Because the GPL requires them to do so for their users. They are circumventing this by making anyone who re-publishes the source (allowed by the GPL) ex-users.
You see many confused people talking about that around, but they're just that - confused. The real problem is that there's a threat of termination of your paid plan once you exercise your GPL freedoms, which is at best fishy. Technically you still have access to all your GPL freedoms, but the GPL states that there must not be any further restrictions, and this certainly feels like one.
Blaming IBM is a conspiracy theory that's more copium than anything else.
That's because at the time, CentOS was still alive.
All the “rebuilders” redhat is complaining are just CentOS folks continuing to do their thing after their name was bought. So this is almost as old as redhat. Not “a new treat”