> you are only entitled to the source if you are a user of said software Sure. But you are entitled to have certain freedoms with that software. These freedoms

> you are only entitled to the source if you are a user of said software Sure. But you are entitled to have certain freedoms with that software. These freedoms include running as many instances you'd like for whatever purpose, and giving away copies of that software for other people to use. So the constructive result of these freedoms is that the cost of software is anchored around the cost of distribution, rather than an arbitrary cost set by the developer. Now personally, I think it would be fantastic if someone were able to come up with some sensible pay-to-use libre license that still retained most of the freedom. The libre community is desperately missing straightforward funding like the proprietary software ecosystem. But it would be necessary to reduce freedom to do that, and it's not particularly clear how to best do that specifically. Any concept of "license instance" to charge based on results in assumptions about how the software is run, that basically undermines the ability to run it on a new type of thing. If the license is per core, then about "serverless"? Or let's say someone forks the software and makes substantive changes - does the original maintainer get to stick around charging rent despite not continuing development? But what Redhat is doing here really isn't really a full on attempt at that. Given the works are still GPL and whatnot, I don't think they'll end up making any more than a speed bump for a new community bug-for-bug compatible distribution to gain popularity the way CentOS did. And heck, it still remains to be seen whether threatening to terminate an orthogonal contract for exercising one's rights under the GPL ends up constituting an "additional restriction". If that was instead a monetary penalty for breach of contract, we would certainly say it does.