Look, when Grsecurity decides to add additional terms between it and it's customers: that's a business decision, protected by American Business Law. Your copyright bullshit doesn't override that._
Sure, if Grsecurity was operating as a charity it might have to abide by the linux kernel license and not add additional terms when distributing it's changes to the linux kernel and the compiler.
But it's not. It's operating as a Business. It can add any additional terms it wants when distributing for pay to it's Customers. This is a Fundamental american freedom as confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Additionally Grsecurity did it's due dilligence by having an attorney from the Patent Bar look over it's business plan and the Patent Bar attorney found no copyright problems: American Business law gives an absolute right to conduct Business with whatever customers one wants to; and to cut off any customers one wants to at anytime: INCLUDING as a forewarned penalty if an act of redistribution to non-customers occurs.
It doesn't matter what linus' copyright rights are to his work, nor what his license supposidly allows. American Business Law allows Grsecurity to add whatever additional terms it wants to when working with IT'S CUSTOMERS. It has chosen to add: No redistribution, Forum is Penn. State, Law is Penn. Law, No liability if penalty for illicit redistribution is enacted.
Grsecurity has the RIGHT to protect it's PROPERTY: which are the changes it has chosen to make to the Linux Kernel and the GCC compiler. It does NOT matter what linus thinks his copyright means. It doesn't mean anything.
Which is WHY linus hasn't spoken up: He knows he has no legs to stand on: his copyright isn't worth trash. Same with RMS and the Free Software Foundation and their GCC compiler: Their copyright isn't worth trash.
All Programmers Agree: Patches are not subject to the original copyright holders copyright. Patent Bar lawyers agree aswell.