They are blatantly violating the copyrights of the linux licensors, as far as we know. The linux licensors should sue. Another option is to simply revoke the l

They are blatantly violating the copyrights of the linux licensors, as far as we know. The linux licensors should sue. Another option is to simply revoke the license: Brad Spengler has (as far as we know) a gratis (free) license from the many linux licensors. Such a license is NOT secured: it's similar to a gratis property license where one can have their permission to use land ended at any time by the property owner (in this case the linux licensors (copyright holders). According to the GPL text itself: the license has been withdrawn upon violation (note: with a gratis license a violation is /not/ required for revocation: the licensor can simply /decide/ he doesn't want you to continue using his property. A paid GPL license would be an example of a non-gratis free-software license situation where the licensees "rights" are secured and irrevocable (generally), a gratis free-software license simply extends /requirements/ onto the licensee and no /duties/ upon the licensor)