GRSecurity is violating the GPL, and thus violating the linux programmers copyrights, as Bruce Perens explained: https://linux.slashdot.org/story/17/07/09/18824

GRSecurity is violating the GPL, and thus violating the linux programmers copyrights, as Bruce Perens explained: https://linux.slashdot.org/story/17/07/09/188246/bruce-perens-warns-grsecurity-breaches-the-linux-kernels-gpl-license https://linux.slashdot.org/story/17/07/09/188246/bruce-peren... http://perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ http://perens.com/blog/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potenti... Brad Spengler / PaxTeam / GRSecurity have no right to modify the linux code nor redistribute derivative works of it thusly. Placing a "no redistribution or else" clause in a "separate writing" does not absolve one from the requirement NOT to stymie the linux programmer's stipulation in their license that such restrictions NOT be created by distributees or those who have created derivative works. The linux programmers should sue Spengler, or simply revoke his license (another option: gratis licenses are freely revocable: they are not secured by an interest, and as-far-as-we-know Spengler has not payed the linux licensors for a license).