Quoting Bruce Perens (bruce@???):

> Because grsecurity.net's stated policy (which could also be called
> "threat") has created a chilling effect upon such redistribution. IMO that
> is enough to be actionable.

Show me the caselaw, please.

'Chilling effect' is indeed a concept in law, but no actual tort by that
name exists. But if you claim that copyright violation can be found by
causing exercise of a copyright-covered right have consequences that are
within a party's rights to visit upon the rights-user -- such as
Spengler's firm ending a business relationship -- then I would hope you
can show me caselaw where a judge so ruled.

Spengler deciding no longer to do business with a redistributor doesn't
prevent that party from carrying out redistribution. It just means it
has lawful real-world consequences the redistributor might not like.

Your calling that a 'chilling effect' doesn't make it tortious.