There are 2 instances under the GPL that allows Red Hat to make their money. Just to qualify my point, here's the clause of the GPL I refer to:
It seems to me that Red Hat charges for the act of creating a CD for you and for the limited warranty they provide with their retail versions.

If someone wants to "make a buck" from selling a Gnutella servent, he/she would have to make that buck by developing their own software from scratch. The makers of Moose aren't doing any "work" by riding the progress of an already fully developed client. Now, unless they can distribute their servent and charge under the guise of providing a warranty of some sort, then that's fine. However, they still would have to make their source available to whomever wants it... free of charge of course. If not, then they're clearly in violation of the GPL and can be taken to court.

If you want a good no adware client, then why don't you use Gnucleus? You know.... the FREE GPL software that Moose is going to be based on. Besides that, there's already an ad free version of LimeWire that cost HALF as much as would be charged for Moose.

But, that all being said, I'm just the messenger. I didn't make the rules... and the makers of Moose will have to take it up with the Free Software Foundation if they feel they don't like it. (Not that there's much they could do about it.) And, being the messenger, I'll make sure the FSF knows all the details if I find out that they're not following the GPL.

However, all this may be in vain. After all, the makers of Moose have not yet said whether they plan on complying with the GPL. If so, then this discussion is moot.