Looking at the license it sounds like there is not any such restrictions, but you would have to look at the individual software to verify, but exceptions should be mainly 3rd party binary only code...
One reason to remove public sources is to keep the load off of their servers. The is from: http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/licenses/GLOBAL_EULA_RHEL_English_20101110.pdf License Grant. Subject to the following terms, Red Hat, Inc. (“ Red Hat ”) grants to you a perpetual, worldwide license to the Programs (most of which include multiple software components) pursuant to the GNU General Public License v.2. The license agreement for each soft ware component is located in the software component's source code and permits you to run, copy, modify, and redistribute the softwar e component (subject to certain obligations in some cases), both in source code and binary code forms, with the exception of (a) certain bi nary only firmware components and (b) the images identified in Section 2 below. The license rights for the binary only firmware components are loc ated with the components themselves. This EULA pertains solely to the Progr ams and does not limit your rights under, or grant you rights that supersede, the license terms of any particular component. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Rousell" <markrlon...@hotmail.co.uk> > To: SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@FNAL.GOV > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 3:28:49 PM > Subject: Re: Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build > > Thanks to everyone who commented and I apologise for the delay in > replying. > > So it seems that complete clarity is not yet available. Ok. > > A couple more questions in the search for clarity:- > > 1) Can anyone confirm or deny that Red Hat places contractual > limitations on what a subscriber (who has access to the RHEL7 SRPMs) > can > do with the source code so obtained? Yes, I know this has been > discussed > but I don't think it has been explicitly confirmed. One must infer > that > there are contractual limitations (otherwise why remove public access > to > SRPMs) but it would be nice to be absolutely clear. > > 2) This is a legal question but it is relevant: If Red Hat uses a > contract with its customers to prevent a customer who is a recipient > of > the GPLd source code (when received via SRPM) from redistributing it > or > rebuilding it as they please, wouldn't this mean that Red Hat itself > was > in breach of the GPL licence conditions? >
