This is wrong. Everything in RHEL is downstream from CentOS Stream - all of the sources are published there. The only differences are a handful of trademarks.
>If the paying customers republish the source, then RedHat closes the account.
Even if you ignore the above and think only about the official sources provided direct from the customer portal, it's still not a violation IMO.
Because that's not a restriction on how you can use the software you've been provided, it's a restriction on which services you can expect Red Hat to continue providing you, i.e. providing new software in the form of updates. The software you have already been provided continues functioning, it's not like the system gets bricked if your account is closed. GPL only specifies "what are you allowed you do with this piece of software you have been provided with", it doesn't guarantee a future relationship between the provider and receiver.
At worst it's a murky area, not a "systematic violation" as you claimed.
Also, like, it's a hypothetical thing the user agreement claims could be done, not something that necessarily is done. I don't think there has ever been an actual demonstrated instance of an account being closed because of that.
They may get published to RHEL first in the case of embargo'd security fixes (and not by long), but the point is that the sources are still published to CentOS Stream.
>If the paying customers republish the source, then RedHat closes the account.
Even if you ignore the above and think only about the official sources provided direct from the customer portal, it's still not a violation IMO.
Because that's not a restriction on how you can use the software you've been provided, it's a restriction on which services you can expect Red Hat to continue providing you, i.e. providing new software in the form of updates. The software you have already been provided continues functioning, it's not like the system gets bricked if your account is closed. GPL only specifies "what are you allowed you do with this piece of software you have been provided with", it doesn't guarantee a future relationship between the provider and receiver.
At worst it's a murky area, not a "systematic violation" as you claimed.
Also, like, it's a hypothetical thing the user agreement claims could be done, not something that necessarily is done. I don't think there has ever been an actual demonstrated instance of an account being closed because of that.