This is a bit of a strawman in my opinion. I’m sure Red Hat won’t care if you, as a customer, use their sources, rebuild them and “share it with your neighbor”. They won’t terminate an account over that, at least I’d be very surprised if they did. I don’t consider “downloading all sources, removing any branding, rebuilding, offering for free and selling commercial support” the same though, but there’s no mechanism in the GPL to differentiate between those.

The GPL doesn't differentiate because they'd be getting into the same messy territory as the Anti-Capitalism license. If Red Hat stops selling RHEL, does that mean no one can offer it for free and sell commercial support for it? Does Red Hat only get to tell them to stop if they're competing? How big does the competing company need to be before it's not allowed? Is it okay if they're a non-profit, or a capped-profit, or a government organization?

Keep in mind these are just some issues I thought of in thirty seconds. I'm sure there are plenty more.

Branding is removed because it would be trademark infringement to keep it; if Red Hat wanted it intact, they could give permission to use their trademarks in this scenario, but I doubt they do.

The ability to sell free software is a fundamental right under the GPL. As Drew Devault says, Open source means surrendering your monopoly over commerical exploitation.

That's why profiting off free software is hard; because you don't have a monopoly anymore. I think that's an important feature.

Agreed, and nobody is denying them this right. However, at the same time, Red Hat has the right to terminate the accounts with customers if they decide that the business relationship costs them more money than it makes them. The right to choose who to have business with is not stronger or weaker than the GPL.

My position is that I don't think this is how a free software company should behave, but I'll refrain from voicing any further opinions until Red Hat actually terminates a customer's contract for redistribution.

Jeff Geerling says something along the lines “Red Hat didn’t build the Linux kernel, nor do they own it” which I think is disingenuous: they never claimed they own the Linux kernel, and they’re the second largest contributor to it after Intel

Yes, I agree. They're one of the biggest contributors to the kernel alone, but the kernel isn't even the most important part of GNU/Linux. The userland software matters a lot too, and they're responsible for funding/developing a lot of that, as well. There's some stuff in that video I disagree with but overall it's not too bad.

I can see people being upset losing free enterprise-grade distributions (though personally in my limited experience could find nothing to like about it), but at the same time, most of the complainers weren’t actually covered by the GPL at all because Red Hat did not supply them with the binaries anyways.

I'm pretty sure that, regardless of who you obtain the software from, you have rights under the GPL. I could be wrong.

I probably could have linked to another answer on the GNU website, but I found the context of this one amusing: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy

If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief probably does have the right to make copies and redistribute them under the GPL, but if thieves are imprisoned for stealing the CD, they may have to wait until their release before doing so.