In reply to J K Hoffman.

Sorry, @ChipBennett, I can't seem to reply directly to your reply to my comment. I'm not a lawyer either, but I've seen some pretty surprising things in contracts that actual lawyers have allegedly approved. Of course, the precise wording matters a great deal and, until it's tested in front of a judge in an actual case, anything in a contract is up for interpretation. In fact, from my admittedly limited legal experience, almost all of what's being debated is open to interpretation until it's tested with an actual court case.

As regards to your second point, fair enough. The redistribution under the GPL is clearly allowed. However, I was referring to the theft of the time and effort which, theoretically, is what one has paid for, not the source code.
What's moral or immoral about any of it is, actually, irrelevant. We're talking about the law, not morality. Anyone who's dealt with contracts and licensing agreements, which I have in my day job, knows that law and morality aren't directly related. There are many things which I consider to be immoral that are perfectly legal and vice versa.
Legally, it is well within the copyright holder's rights, even under the GPL, to deny their customers support for violating an agreement not to resell work they purchased, even if said customers have the legal right under the GPL to freely redistribute the code purchased. The law doesn't have to make sense to a moral philosopher, just to lawyers, which is why they get paid. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but that doesn't change anything.