I agree with most points in this article but there is clearly some FUD being passed off as fact as well. Specifically that Red hats EULA around free use of GPL

I agree with most points in this article but there is clearly some FUD being passed off as fact as well. Specifically that Red hats EULA around free use of GPL code is valid. The author's previous post that indicated far less certainty around that is actually the more correct position. Simply because some company can write a Eula does not mean that those terms are always enforceable. Simply because companies can choose to terminate a business relationship does not always mean that it's legal to do so. This is really a question that the courts would have to decide if the threat of termination of a business relationship constitutes an additional restriction. Looking at similar things what the courts could decide is really a toss-up and no one knows because if you can show that the exercise of Rights granted to you under the GPL were the reason for the termination of the business agreement for a company that is utilizing GPL code you have a strong argument that they have now placed additional restrictions by their business practices. There are arguments to be made the other way as well. Despite what corporate lawyers would tell you this is not clear-cut at all. The thing is the GPL is largely a "gentleman's agreement" as there is no large single entity with the deep pockets willing to dump money into enforcing it at every possible point. The move by IBM and red hat is a violation of this gentleman's agreement in principle and their position is if people don't like it "fight me". With their restrictive EULA they are essentially calling the bluff that the GPL puts out there because they know there is not going to be anyone who fights them on this. So their legal position maybe a 50/50 shot in the courts but it goes up to a 90/10 win for them simply because GPL enforcement is so problematic.