This might make a little more sense if you still can't understand:

By operating under their previously-stated policy of denying further
service to clients who exercise their right to distribute under the GPL
license, Open Source Security Inc. creates an expectation that exercise of
the re-distribution right required under the terms of the GPL will lead to
business damage to the customer. This practice effectively is an added term
to the license, and addition of such a term is prohibited under language in
GPL section 6. This leads to termination of the GPL license granted to Open
Source Security Inc., and thus to copyright infringement of the Linux
Kernel by that entity. In addition, the GPL is breached as a contract from
the copyright holders of the Linux software to which Open Source Security
Inc. and the customer are both joined.

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Bruce Perens <bruce@???> wrote:

> The specific text breached is "You may not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
>
> On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Bruce Perens <bruce@???> wrote:
>
>> My legal counsel says it's a direct breach of the license, not of
>> business law.
>>
>> By the way, the next issue of Berkeley Technology Law Journal has this
>> article
>> <http://perens.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Open-Cars-Determann-Perens-32-BTLJ-2-Forthcoming-2017.pdf>
>> which I co-authored with a law teacher at Boalt Hall.
>>
>>
>>
>