AlmaLinux's response to Red Hat's policy change

But I'm confused by your mention of the differences between licenses and contracts, and how they aren't that great (the way I'd puti
it: this difference was a talking point and a legal theory of FSF, but that's not the direction case law has taken).

I don't see how it supports the other things you said. Seems to me it would be the contrary. IIUC, if there is a meaningful distinction between a contract and a license (and according to FSF's interpretation), a contract is something that can do more than a license. According to this theory, in a license you are merely granted in a one-sided way something that you would otherwise not have; it is a pure expansion of your rights. A contract, on the other hand, would allow a two-sided deal where in consideration for some rights you would give up something you would have if you didn't enter into that contract.

So it seems to me that licenses and contracts not being that different can actually only hinder Red Hat. It would mean that a license could bind Red Hat's conduct more than what would be the case if FSF's theory was right.