It's not obvious to me that the user you're replying to believed that these were your opinions. It seemed more obvious to me that they were replying indirectly to the comments made by the Red Hat staff member.
But now that you've gotten to the point of having your own opinion and take: what is "the main issue" as you've mentioned here?
The main issue is that people in this thread, and elsewhere in related threads, are coming to believe that Red Hat is somehow doing something illegal or improper -- due to inaccurate and misleading headlines, and misinterpretations of the requirements of GPL licenses.
Which, of course, is untrue since Red Hat has stated several times, in the links I've posted above, that Red Hat are (a) STILL providing complete corresponding source code, which one will still receive when they are distributed a binary by Red Hat, and (b) FULLY complying with the terms of GPL and other FLOSS licenses.
These are the two issues that people are misrepresenting, by saying either that Red Hat is (a) locking-down or otherwise disallowing access to complete corresponding source for binary recipients, which is untrue, or (b) that Red Hat is not complying with the FLOSS licenses their software are used under, which is also not true.
The next issue that is raised, one that was mentioned by the Software Freedom Conservancy [1], is that Red Hat is somehow extorting their customers by either making them choose between exercising their GPL rights, or continuing to receive support.
Red Hat is free to terminate support with any of their customers--that is not a GPL issue. The transaction the GPL covers is: Red Hat gives (or sells) the user a binary, the user can request the complete corresponding source code (not need to be immediately provided with), and once requested then Red Hat must provide that code. That is the end of the transaction. The GPL does not cover any additional period, or force Red Hat to continue business with a particular user.
I feel that I've very rarely actually heard people complain that what Red Hat is doing is illegal. The overwhelming majority of negative opinion takes that I've heard has been, "Red Hat is trying to squeeze out money from users which is against the spirit of Linux." Which is to paraphrase the generally ineloquent takes I've heard on the matter. Though there's a point to be made there, why did Linus Torvalds start the Linux project? To make a free alternative to the expensive Unix of the time. I think that point falls a bit short, there are plenty of completely free Linux-based distributions out there to choose from. People just wanted an "Enterprise Linux" for free, which for years had been CentOS, and now Rocky/Alma Linux. People feel like they're going to have to change to a new OS or pay Red Hat money, which given the spirit of RHEL, change probably isn't something these people are accustom to.
In short, I've heard of people being generally annoyed by the change, which may be fair. I haven't heard too many people seriously trying to make the claim that what Red Hat is doing is illegal.
It is in the spirit, and here it is straight from the horse's mouth:
> Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
> Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
It's all well and good that RH follows the legal requirements of the GPL by providing the sources to their customers. All above board there.
The problem is that, as a downstream customer of that software, RH threatens to terminate my business contract with them if I exercise my own freedom to redistribute that software. It's completely in bad faith.
Yeah, Red Hat is free to terminate their business with you. And you are free to get that software from somewhere else. To quote again from the Selling Free Software article (linked above):
> With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. A high CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the software is free.
And so all these arguments, once all the misinformation is expelled, eventually boil down to this "it's in bad faith" schtick. Well, what is the faith of Rocky Linux when they are purveying a bug-for-bug clone of RHEL, selling support contracts on top of that, and directly competing with Red Hat's business?
Trick question, because "faith" doesn't matter. It's all legal, and these are businesses. They are making business decisions. If one thinks that some corporation--any corporation--owes "faith" or loyalty to their customers, then I got a bridge to sell you.
You're free to hate Red Hat--no one is forcing anyone to _like_ them--but I hope you have some substance somewhere within, and can articulate why.
>f one thinks that some corporation--any corporation--owes "faith" or loyalty to their customers
If you don't think it is well past time to start forcing ethical behaviour on corporations... I don't know what to say to you.
I notice a certain country is fast tracking them to have human rights, like civic voting, but nothing at all about joining in responsible stewardship for our world.
But now that you've gotten to the point of having your own opinion and take: what is "the main issue" as you've mentioned here?