[johnnym]

In most jurisdictions, the language of a contract is interpreted most strictly against the party who wrote it: for the GPL that would be the FSF and co. So being the FSF, you don't have the luxury of arguing what you really meant to say, you are bound by what you did say.

Interesting. The contract is still between the original licensor (creator of a GPL software that is now part of RHEL) and Red Hat. Though the licensor used the GPL verbatim, the FSF is not a contractor. So in this case the contract is still interpreted against the - obviously weaker party of the - original creator of that GPL software and not against a multi-billion Dollar company that wants to profit from the work of millions but not be bound by the specifics of that contract if it hinders them making some extra?

Maybe the flaw lies in the jurisdiction(s)...