> While the details of CCS provisioning vary in the different versions of the GPL agreements, the general principle is that CCS need to be provided either (a) along with the binary distributions to those who receive, or (b) to those who request pursuant to a written offer for source.<p>Since the written offer is apparently mandatory [1], does this mean that a potential way forward (if Red Hat intends to not break the GPL) is for Rocky and Alma to make regular written requests for source?<p>[1] <a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html</a>, specifically<p>> If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.<p>> The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
> Additionally, though, the contract indicates that if the customer engages in these activities, that Red Hat reserves the right to cancel that contract and make no further contracts with the customer for support and update services.<p>Without first-hand experience, that's the same business model that Adacore (of the GNU Ada Translator) were said to use, back when they weren't really having an open source option. That last part seems to have changed, though.