GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code.

[concernedfossdev at teknik.io]

You are not permitted to erect barriers in the way of sublicencees making use of their right to redistribute, a right that is granted by the original rights-holder.
That is called bad faith on your part and your rights to the copyrighted work are dissolved since you have acted in bad faith towards the agreement you have with the original rightsholder
(who has stipulated that sublicensees may redistribute at will: a purpose you are attempting (and succeding at) frustrating).
It does not matter what form these barriers take.

The original licensor has a claim against you, then, for copyright infringement.
The sublicensees have tort claims such as tortious interference (with their quazi-contactual business relationship with the original licensor).
The original licensor has the same such tort claim.

The only way around this is to argue that a patch to the linux kernel is not a derivative work.
Which is a claim that some people make.

In which case any "share alike" type license is essentially meaningless when it comes to software (as a patch can always be distributed rather than a complete work incorporating the original)

The only way Spengler gets away with this, if he is sued, is if he convinces the court that a patch describing all the changes he made to the linux kernel is not a derivative work. 

June 1 2016 8:31 AM, "Xen" <list at xenhideout.nl> wrote:
> concernedfossdev at teknik.io schreef op 31-05-2016 5:19:
> 
>> GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under
>> version 2 the GPL to redistribute
>> (by threatening them with a non-renewal of a contract to recive this
>> patch to the linux kernel.)
>> (GRsecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel (it is a patch)).
> 
> Apparently they can choose whom to distribute to in the first place; GPL
> does not require that you distribute to anyone, only that you must make
> corresponding source available when you do.
> 
> So even though you may have the source (and binaries, I guess) and you
> have the rights under copyright to distribute it further, /as per the
> copyright license/ that only applies to something that has already been
> distributed to you. It says nothing about the requirement for the
> original distributor (in this case grsecurity) to keep distributing to
> you after.
> 
> I would say the GPL is not really completely in line with personal and
> real interests, so it might not be weird to consider that commercial
> vendors would have an issue with it.
> 
> Still this person is not violating GPL. He may be petty but many
> developers are (and I am too). Regardless, it seems this is his "next
> best" solution to place an effective copyright restriction without using
> copyright for it.
> 
> You cannot have rights to source code you never obtained, after all.
> People will do this thing as long as proprietariness is illegal, and you
> can't change humans either to put a stop to that.
> 
> --
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss