Where's the violation?

> Red Hat received a license to distribute GPL software under a certain set of conditions. Arguably they are distributing the software under different conditions not allowed by that license.

And in the UK, I'm pretty certain a lawyer who argued that would get sanctioned for being an idiot.

We have two COMPLETELY SEPARATE things here, a copyright licence, and a service contract.

The customer signs up for the service agreement.

Red Hat says "here's the source and binaries for RHEL" and hands them over. The GPL is effective JUST FOR AN INSTANT - by handing over the code for RHEL it comes into existence for that transfer then, as RH handed over the source, its terms are completely fulfilled and it vanishes again. The customer is now in possession of a GPL'd copy of RHEL, and is perfectly free to re-distribute it.

Should they do so, the terms of the service contract are broken, and THE SERVICE CONTRACT vanishes.

If the customer says to RH "we want to renew the service contract", then RH are perfectly free to say "You can't be trusted to stick to an agreement, we're not doing business with you".

It's actually EXACTLY THE SAME as the patent mess! If I give you a load of software under GPL2 (especially! if I am aware of patents I don't control), then COPYRIGHT law allows me to give you the software and the GPL has no problem with it, but you can't USE that software because PATENT law says so. Same with RHEL - the LICENCE says you can re-distribute, the CONTRACT says you won't. If you choose to exercise your licence rights, then RH will exercise their contract rights. Just because some people see a moral problem, doesn't mean there's a legal one.

Cheers,
Wol