Quoting Bruce Perens (bruce@???):

> I did publish a warning about Grsecurity, here
> <http://perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/?wp-nocache=true>
> .

Well, it's interesting. I notice you just summarily declare that the
patchsets cannot be fair use, without even mentioning the applicable
four-factor conceptual test framework -- your right, of course, if you
don't care to get into messy details. But that's something an alert
reader will pick up on, and immediately wonder about.

The key bit is your sentence 'GPL version 2 section 6 explicitly
prohibits the addition of terms such as this redistribution
prohibition', which does not accord with my own understanding of that
clause or of pragmatic copyright caselaw -- as I've said.

Here's a (separate but tangentially related) interesting hypothetical:
Imagine a commercial firm distributing derivative works of third-party
GPLv2 codebases only to paid customers who're paying for updates and
support. One day, a customer who happens to have been one of, let's
say, three customers who've been redistributing those works receives a
letter saying that in accordance with contract terms that permit either
party to do so, the commercial firm is ending the business relationship
prospectively. No allegation is made that the one action was in
response to the other.

Customer does not have a cause of action under copyright, but let's say
the third-party stakeholder brings tort action against commercial firm
for copyright violation (i.e., substantively denying a redistributor of
a derivative work a required permission). Who prevails?

Stakeholder claims that without granting right of distribution,
commercial firm lacked copyright permission for -its- redistribution
to paying customers, hence is in violation. Commercial firm counters
that, to the contrary, it's done nothing to prevent customer from
exercising that right, and merely was ending a business relationship as
was its right.

The only difference between this and the Spengler et alii matter is
that, in the latter case -- according to you -- customers were told this
was a 'penalty' and a 'threat'.

Whose wording was that, by the way, Spengler's or yours?