This is not difficult to understand at all. There's actually nothing to understand. It's facts.
How people will respond to it is where you'll have variety. I don't think it's proper to use a license then add an auxiliary thing that goes against the spirit of the thing. This is my opinion.
As long as you keep basing your product on GPLed code of course. You can always write everything yourself, take software with a more permissive license, or don't provide updates to anybody.
>You distribute binaries you have to distribute its source as well.
binaries are distributed only to those on the active contract, if you lose the contract you lose the binaries and thus the source. Of course, if you made a local backup you can still use everything for your own benefits
> if you made a local backup you can still use everything for your own benefits
This is GPL code. You can not only use both the binaries and source "for your own benefits",you can also share both forever with whomever you want. There is no revoking the GPL, nor taking the binaries or source back.
Nobody is taking anything back. If your contract with RH stops you lose access to their servers and cannot download their binaries or their source anymore. You can freely share everything you managed to download.
I don't know if you are trolling or actually think this is a clever argument but its not.
Clearly Red Hats thread of cancelling the support contract is intended to discourage source distribution. The point of the GPL is to ensure source distribution is possible. These two goals are inherently opposed.
Why is this so difficult to understand?