It is the fact that the two actions are connected that makes it a breach.
There are very many actions that are legal in isolation, but not when one
is carried out as a consequence of another. The most common instances are
of course in anti-discrimination law.

As an expert witness, I would have no trouble connecting them for a judge
and showing how they were tantamount to an added term under section 6.

On Sat, Jul 1, 2017, 13:49 Alessandro Selli <alessandroselli@???>
wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 16:50:28 -0700
> Bruce Perens <bruce@???> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <
> > enrico.weigelt@???> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> By selling, I mean, you'll first have to pay before you get the code.
> >> But anybody republish it at will (as long as complying to GPL), so
> >> how can that business model work ?
> >
> >
> > It doesn't, unless you have understanding customers who just don't
> > redistribute because they want you to stay in business. But grsecurity
> > doesn't work that way, it is alleged. It is alleged that they tell
> > customers that if they redistribute, they will no longer be allowed to
> be a
> > customer or get the next version.
> >
> > IMO that's violating the GPL.
>
> I don't remember reading anywhere in the GPL a clause forcing someone to
> entertain a commercial relationship with someone they'd rather not. It is
> stated you are free to sell or give away GPL'ed code, but it does not say
> you
> must sell it to anyone who asks you to do so. I know of no licence that
> contains such a clause.
>
>
> Alessandro
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>