> RedHat pulled what is commonly known as a "dick-move". Ef them and the horse they rode in on. To be fair, nobody forced you to use RHEL. Nor is RHEL a prereq

> RedHat pulled what is commonly known as a "dick-move". Ef them and the horse they rode in on. To be fair, nobody forced you to use RHEL. Nor is RHEL a prerequisite to using the open source software that RHEL depends on. > That's nice... but Redhat's entire business is also built on the open source software contributed by tens of thousands of others... "We will give you the SRPM because we legally have to, but if you actually exercise any of the rights afforded to you by the GPL that software was licensed to us under we will immediately terminate you as a customer" I'm sorry but your reasoning doesn't make much sense. We all should have the right to cease to do business with anyone for any reason, whether it's a good reason or not. I don't think that is a right that we should be so quick to abolish. Your rights to the source are not being infringed. Yet you want to force RedHat to do business with you on your terms, and in so doing deny them their right to cease to do business with you for any reason. How does their right to cease to do business affect your ability to distribute/modify the source? It does not, not any more than a pizza shop's refusal to continue to do business with you affect your ability to take home and consume a pizza you bought. If, by analogy, buying one pizza gives you a perpetual and unconditional right to demand that you be served another pizza, I don't see how such a line of reasoning could be implied as a violation of your rights rather than theirs. Put another way, your rights to the source doesn't translate into a right to perpetual service.