The GPL can't force Red Hat to continue to do business with someone.

No, but the copyright holders can sue IBM for copyright violation if Red Hat distributes GPL code with restrictions attached beyond the GPL license.

> Red Hat distributes GPL code with restrictions attached beyond the GPL license

Do you honestly believe that Red Hat and IBM's army of lawyers don't understand GPL?

companies are not one unified thing, though they may project that and internalize that. You don't think that there is internal tension ? differing opinions among staff attorneys?

second however, it seems that there is a growing conceit among the cloud-native management, that they can ignore GPL, throw it into code-regrinding services, and generally act with impunity.

Random company with a device and inconvenienced by the GPL is one thing, but it beggars belief that Red Hat, which has been working with GPLed code since 1993 that is one of the cornerstones of its business model, struggles to comprehend what GPL was intended to accomplish.

> You don't think that there is internal tension ? differing opinions among staff attorneys?

In this case? Absolutely not. I'm yet to hear someone with legal training say this might be a problem.

> second however, it seems that there is a growing conceit among the cloud-native management, that they can ignore GPL

Red Hat isn't ignoring the GPL. I'd don't see the relevance of this digression.

And this is Red Hat we're talking about, one of the few companies that managed to build a sustainable business around mostly GPL-ed software.

Except we're talking about IBM now, right? Red Hat is not the same entity it once was, although may still have some or many of the same engineers on staff.

The best I think we can hope for is individual engineers that have a major stake in important software deciding to leave the company.

Why haven't they done it in the past 20 years? The supposed restrictions have existed for that long, and the long-term support branches were never in CentOS and have always been accessible to customers only.

Because you still have the rights. You just aren't in a position to get future source code / binaries.

Think of it this way: The GPL doesn't obligate Red Hat to accept all customers in the first place, right? If you stop paying for your RHEL subscription, the GPL doesn't oblige Red Hat to continue it and continue distributing future releases of RHEL to you.

But even if you stop paying, you still have your GPL rights for the versions you received.

The only difference here is Red Hat saying "yeah, we're not taking your money anymore. Enjoy the source code and binaries you've received so far, but you're not getting new ones from us."

Oh man, the legal battle when Red Hat tries to crack down on "pirated" GPL software is going to be... interesting.

(that's where this is surely going, right? Or else they're just not going to bother actually trying to enforce this policy change, and let all these 3rd parties use alternative methods of obtaining the source)

If I had to guess, simply making these alternate GPL sources unofficial _enough_, will be good enough. If the whole alternate source is stained with the guise of "this is technically allowed but has no warranty and no guarantee it will receive the same patches", many people will jump ship and pay for support. Whereas right now, if it's literally the same thing, there's no reason to.

> How is saying "I'll ban you if you exercise these rights" not imposing a further restriction on them?

How is saying "you haven't distributed my source code, I'll sell you the next version too, if you want" imposing a further restriction on anyone?

From GPLv2, section 6:

> Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

I'd say that refusing to do further business counts as a retaliatory restriction against the recipients' exercise of their rights. In general the law finds against retaliatory business practices.