It sounds like the problem you both have is a high sense of entitlement for something that the license doesn't entitle you to have...why is Red Hat at fault for asking you to pay for something that wasn't at all free or easy to create?
Where did I say they were at fault? All I said was that they're making a significant move away from their open source business model.
Now in your post that I was replying to, on the other hand, you clearly seem to be talking about the broader social contract that the open source community is organized around. Red Hat makes the best code and documentation they have available to anyone, and in return the community does the same.
Red Hat has loudly trumpeted the superiority of this social contract over the proprietary avenue. Now their documentation has become proprietary. That says to me they believe the social contract and the business model they've built around it are somehow flawed.
Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight, and so I don't feel at all entitled to their documentation. If I'm working with Red Hat I'll be working with someone who has a support contract. But if I were, for example, someone involved with Fedora who had worked on resolving issues in Red Hat, I would feel like Red Hat was acting improperly, regardless of legality. Are you arguing that it's okay to free ride on the work of the community and not give back what you create? Stop muddying the waters by flitting back and forth between morality and legality, please.
Devil's advocate: software isn't free or easy to create either. Maybe open source license should require "best-effort" documentation, or prevent the witholding of it.
