To start with, I totally sympathize with Red Hat on this one. The question is not whether Red Hat deserves to do this, but whether the _LICENSE_ allows them to

To start with, I totally sympathize with Red Hat on this one. The question is not whether Red Hat deserves to do this, but whether the _LICENSE_ allows them to do so. > Why is Red Hat obligated to release source code They are not obligated to release source code to the public. But they _are_ obligated to put no restrictions whatsoever on redistribution (100% clone or not). From the GPL: "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." Red Hat is basically saying "We understand that the GPL allows you to redistribute our product as is. But, if you do, we will terminate our relationship with you.". IMO that is no different than a company saying "Yes, you have a statutory right for refunds within 30 days. However, if you exercise it, we will not sell you any products in the future.". That counts as a (indirect) restriction in my book.