Support will be 'best effort', and if you mention you are using my work on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I will close your bug/feature/support request as 'not reproducible', since doing so would require I jump through artificial barriers Red Hat has erected to prevent the use of their Linux distribution by the wider community.

I don't see this helping Red Hat in any way in the long term.

In the end, this is just sad:

It's sad for users like me who used CentOS and developed tools on it that on-ramped folks into Red Hat's ecosystem.
It's sad for Red Hat, which used to fight for open source, but now puts up barriers around their own source code.
It's sad for everyone still in their ecosystem, because they're now forced to deal with Red Hat's licensing shenanigans and the loss of so many in the open source community.

The corporate license experts I talked to said the threat of termination of a subscription would not trigger the 'no restrictions' clause of the GPLv2, which deals with a copyright, not a contract.

I... disagree in principle (for what that's worth, lol) and think a lot about "interference, coercion, or intimidation", something surrounded by some legal precedent, admittedly not in the software space, and only really dealing with discriminatory topics like real estate sales. But it seems there is some case law (ironically, dealing with SCO and IBM) on the topic.

As for whether Red Hat would enforce that agreement and cancel someone's subscription for sharing the source code, here's what Mike McGrath had to say (at approximately 50:30):

> If they [downstreams] continue to use their subscription, I think that they would find they'd have difficulties with that, but, I don't really know what else to say about it.

I think it's insane Red Hat, of all companies, is the one triggering this thought process.