how is that legal??
that sounds like a very clean cut case of thinks companies aren't allowed to do under fair market lawes
e.g. "Execs can no longer vacation in or transit through France without threat of arrest because they've ignored a legal directive."
See e.g. Oliver Schmidt of VW who was arrested on vacation in Florida from Germany, and served seven years in prison. Or Meng Wanzhou of Huawei.
but a break up is also kinda the most extreme case
more common is specific requirements being enforced onto the company and fining them severely if they continue to refuse to comply (while also still doing business in given country)
The GPL clearly grants every recipient the same full rights as whoever they received something from, so copyright law itself says that you can take that source and redistribute it.
But starting a year or so ago RedHat says you may not redistribute, which they can't actually say, so you still can, but if you do you will be fired as a customer and lose all future access, so you only get to do it once.
Given the clear wording that makes the intent of the GPL unambiguous, that every end user is fully empowered and you may not do anything to curtail that, I don't see how they get away with it except the simple fact that no one has been willing to take on the legal fight.
If you're a pre-"stream" Centos user, you don't have the money for that. If you're a paying RHEL user, you don't want to be on bad terms with RedHat or maybe IBM either, and neither the licence costs nor the rules bothers you at all anyway.
So it's plainly illegal in my opinion, but will stand, illegal and yet in effect and unchallenged probably indefinitely.
Redhead limits third party distribution
Google _sells_ third party distribution but forbids the third party to also provide products of a 4th party.
Both can be legally and ethically be discussed.
But one is open source being less open then it should be.
But the other "(effectively) forbids selling of a product of another vendor in context of duopoly".
That the product is based on a open source from the 1st party is overall irrelevant here.
I.e. this isn't really about open source, this is about _very_ fundamental rules of (proper working) capitalism being breached in ways which iff widely tolerated are very likely to lead to economical & innovation decline and long term collapse sooner or later.