Nah. GPLv3: > You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose

Nah. GPLv3: > You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License. Given that there are a mix of licenses in use on Red Hat's distribution, they could be in a world of hurt. There's GPL, GPLv3, LGPL, CDDL, Apache, and so on. These all have different terms. GPLv3 in particular is the one that I think gets legally interesting, and I think it would be a neat court case. Courts have recently taken up issues like non-compete agreements, and of course the enforceability of various contracts and licenses has always been a topic for interesting court cases. This would be the same way. Is the GPLv3 actually enforceable? Can you legally have a license or contract forcing action on the recipient of a piece of IP? To say that RH did nothing wrong might actually come down to the legal fund at IBM of course, since courts are neither fair nor free.