At worst I'd imagine that IBM's influence is felt this way: IBM expects x% growth and other metrics every quarter. How that is achieved is up to Red Hat's executives. If the leadership at Red Hat decides it can do that with the status quo, then I don't think IBM is going to say "no, you must change the source distribution to fit our evil plan."
The worst thing that IBM has done directly (IMO) was plucking Jim Whitehurst away from Red Hat and over to IBM, but not making him CEO. Whatever reason IBM chose to do that, it wasn't good for Red Hat or IBM long-term in my opinion.
True, and it's likely nothing will change this time too. But if there's no outrage at all and nobody tries, we guarantee nothing changes and probably invite further encroachment.
You should be addressing IBM. This is how they operate. Things will only get more strict and more difficult to work with from here. They don't care about good will. They don't care about OSS. The only thing that matters is dominance in the market place to take care of their bottom line.