Red Hat is probably the biggest single provider of GPL software in the world. They consistently choose the GPL for software they author and release. They founded and fund the Fedora Project themselves explicitly to be a community driven distro independent of their commercial efforts. They provide the full source to their products even though a huge percentage of the code is MIT, BSD, or Apache and does not require them to. They provide everything required to produce the "aggregate" full product even though the GPL does not require them to.

I will go on record now with the prediction that, if uutils catches on, Red Hat will be one of the last companies to move away from GNU. They are probably the largest contributor to glibc and GCC.

What evidence do you have that they would have "preferred not to provide source at all"? Because their is a mountain of evidence otherwise.

As an individual user, Red Hat will give you a free license to their flagship product. Then they will tell you how to download every line of code for it. I don't have a license. I do not use Red Hat (other than occasionally using the also totally free RHEL9 container).

"Remember when Red Hat tried to lock away the source code to subscribers only?"

I do not remember them changing the policy you are talking about. If you think they did, it highlights how overblown the response was at the time. The biggest impact of the Red Hat change is that Alma Linux is now a better project that can actually innovate and contribute.