LOL. " #GRSecurity violates both the Linux kernel's copyright and the #GCC #copyright by forbidding redistribution of the patches (in their Access Agreement): which are non-seperable derivative works of the kernel and (in the case of the GCC plugins) GCC. Yes: threatening consequences if a licensee redistributes is a restraint on the "rights" given by the original copyright owners. Those "plugins" he is talking about as-well as the kernel patch violate the GPLv2. The GPLv2 FORBIDS adding additional clauses not-within the GPL between the derivative-licensee and the down-the-line licensee. Bradly Spengler / OpenSourceSecurity are violating this stipulation, blatantly, in writing. They are also violating the "no additional restrictions" stipulation in the GPLv2. They ARE violating the Linux and the GCC copyright."

I guess the Microsoft binary blobs in UEFI are not GPL either uh?