From what I understand[1], up to RHEL6, Red Hat released their sources on public ftp, but after that they became customer/subscriber-only.

I would have thought that the GPL ensures that the customer can then freely redistribute them, but I've read that companies can still make that option very unattractive through other means (e.g. terminating the customer contract, mingling sources with proprietary stuff and making them hard to disentangle). I don't know if RH is playing such games, but the complete lack of non-gated RHEL7 and 8 source code on the web gives some strong hints.

edit: relevant thread: https://github.com/rocky-linux/rocky/issues/4

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/603865/

The difficulty is that RHEL isn't a GPLed work. It's a mix of free software under various licenses and logos and other oddball things that are protected by trademark or copyright and are non-free (the non-free part is mostly icons and images identifying the system as RHEL). There isn't a lot of that, but it all has to be separated out to be legal to redistribute. If you go through all the work to do that, you wind up with the equivalent of CentOS. But RHEL's customers don't have the incentive to do that work.

>> I would have thought that the GPL ensures that the customer can then freely redistribute them

I'm actually surprised Red Hat has typically shipped SRPMS in bulk to it's customers. I think it's rare that customers would use them, and the GPL allows Red Hat to be far less accomodating. It allows you to charge for each copy of the source code you convey, it doesn't need to be in such a convenient form, it doesn't need to be available on-demand, it just needs to be available on-request.

Once a customer has it, yes - the GPL allows them to hand it to Rocky Linux and let them run with it. But I think the community has been fortunate so far just to get the distro sources they have in the way they've gotten them.

edit: Perhaps "fortunate" isn't the right word, since Red Hat benefits from the community and owes the community some reciprocation. I'm just saying that legally, if Red Hat wanted to be bigger douche bags, the GPL gives them some space to do so. And I'm glad they haven't fully taken advantage of that before.

The requirement to distribute source means you have to provide the exact source for any binary that you distributed, for three years. And the source is defined as " the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". A pointer to the upstream tarball plus a poorly organized directory with 58 patches in it isn't "the preferred form of the work ...". SRPMs are an easy way to make sure that you got it right, that the source really corresponds to be binary. Attempting to add speed bumps risks getting it wrong and providing a way for pissed-off developers to make trouble.

I think the alternative which the other commenter had in mind was simply providing desired SRPMS to customers reactively upon request, possibly with a nonzero charge to cover, rather than proactively providing them to all customers in bulk. The GPL certainly allows this, as opposed to a tarball and patches which you're right is inadequate.

Interesting wrinkle in the GPL's written offer option: the offer must be valid for "any third party", not only direct customers. But, it's certainly possible for the included written offer to reference an email address or website that is unique to each paying customer, such that valid request coming from a third party would be traceable to the intermediate paying customer whose support contract would then be canceled by Red Hat.

Does anyone know if Red Hat does this kind of watermarking of the GPL written offers, or if a licensee could share the offer anonymously, leak-style, and not get caught by the support contract people?

I don't disagree, but I've seen other open-source companies view the tarball as their source release and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you could at least make enough of an argument to get a judge to go along with it long enough to make it prohibitively expensive to reverse.