This is incorrect. Sharing source, you receive from Red Hat as part of your Subscription, is not limited by our Subscription Agreements and there is no penalty for sharing it. See Section 1.4 here.
This Agreement establishes the rights and obligations associated with Subscription Services and is not intended to limit your rights to software code under the terms of an open source license.
This is interesting. If this is indeed the case then much of the discussion around it could be considered FUD. Why is redhat not addressing it? Why did the false idea get traction in the first place?
I do think Mike McGrath tried to communicate this. It got missed somehow.
Maybe we now got a case of foot (or even two feet) inserted into mouth. It’s highly emotional topic, even internally. I don’t know what the communications strategy is. Not my job. I will say that we’re encouraged internally, “don’t feed the trolls” and to let our various communication teams and leaders to do their jobs.
I just hope others like maddog guide the community back to sane discussions.
Both commenters to my comment used the word "simply". I don't think this is simple at all.
How is it simple for a company who wants support from a vendor to "simply" lose that support even though the license of the code was specifically designed to ensure the very thing.
