Restating my assumptions…

How much power does this thing draw?

They don’t want you to see the “if benchmark_xyz { do less work }” blocks of code.

The one argument that even flies understand:

Switch light on outside of my room. -> Get out!

Because they want it. It’s the main reason why they’ve built the app.

Er oder sie hat ausgeschissen.

Literally means “has pooped” but has different subtexts depending on the situation, including a sense of finality.

Do you know how Germans call someone who is done for? Someone who can’t poop anymore!

Scenario:

1. Sign up for RedHat account
2. Acquire source code
3. distribute source code
4. RedHat cancels your account
5. you still have the binaries (and are allowed to, they’re GPL)
6. you want the source code again… but can’t. Account is closed.

Now you’re in a situation where you’re entitled to receive the source code, but can’t because they won’t let you.

If this will ever go to court, I suspect RedHat will pursue a “corner case” solution. A canceled account will probably have access to the source code from RedHat *up to that very cancel-date" and you’ll not get a new binary (from them). So it should be mostly legal for them to do so.

However, as long as no trademark of RedHat is violated, distributing individual RHEL binaries (not the full images, they contain trademarked assets) should be fine. So you could receive a binary through that route and be entitled to the source code for it, starting the whole process over again.

One could always fork it, though I like the name. I’m a LeGuin fan.

Nothing lasts longer than a crudely thought out band aid solution to a not fully understood problem.