They have chosen to use a populist message.
So I assume they share the same traits as other populists. Populists never believe in the cause, only self enrichment.
They by design don't understand why things are structured and done the way they are because it undermines their simplistic message. "It would all be fixed if we just did x, or got rid of y"
They all seem to rely on culture wars "x group gets more than you, z are trying to stop, etc...).
So I assume if the council are using a populist message they have messed up and seeking to escape blame and maybe get something on the side.
The GPL requires you to distribute the GPL source code along side artefacts generated from it.
Red Hat used to share everything with everyone, they never needed to do that. To meet the requirements they need to share the code sources with licensed customers. This is what they have switched to doing.
This is my problem with the GPL, it feels like a cult of personality built around Stallman. With people assuming its somehow a magical license.
Businesses largely treat GPL as libraries they don't modify (or legal gets frowny face) so they don't have to share their code.
The "less free" licenses are generally ok to use and modify (the WTFPL caused fun with legal in one job). If you modify an open source project its normally easy to build a business case/convince a client to upstream the changes.
All the Red Hat changes demonstrate is another step towards an Oracle/Microsoft licensing model. Which is a good reason to not use RHEL or Fedora.