I don't dislike your sentiment and don't see Rocky Linux as dirtbags, but I think it is important for GPL that you have to[1] provide source only if you provide

I don't dislike your sentiment and don't see Rocky Linux as dirtbags, but I think it is important for GPL that you have to[1] provide source only if you provide binaries (IANAL, lawyers correct me). So you should be able to have a business where you sell software and the people who buy receive the GPL'd source code (that they can then modify and share). You don't have to develop in public, or use version control programs: participate in the whole "GitHub culture". GPL tries to guarantee an environment for user freedom (not developer convenience, like permissive licenses). It has builtin protection against someone closing the source. It doesn't protect against some company pulling an Internet Explorer on you (i.e. providing a free equivalent) with your own code, because this doesn't directly concern user freedoms. You don't have to be actively helping them though. I think ultimately free-of-charge mirrors should exist, but I see good potentials in companies discovering business merits of GPL, and hopefully AGPL. We need more vigor for those, after getting lucky once with Linux. We cannot rely on good will of corporations (only enforced law works on them), so any sign of luring them into copyleft somehow is a good thing. This would be a long road, but who knows what could happen in the current "AI" chaos and regulation scares. [1] Of course only have to assuming that you are not the original author and you're building on someone else's code received under GPL.