[License-discuss] Why will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)?

[gameonlinux at redchan.it]

RMS:
Could you share your thoughts, if any, of why no one will sue GrSecurity 
("Open Source Security" (a Pennsylvania company)) for their blatant 
violation of section 6 of version 2 of the GNU General Public License?

Both regarding their GCC plugins and their Linux-Kernel patch which is a 
non-separable derivative work?

They distribute such under a no-redistribution agreement to paying 
customers (the is the only distribution they do). If the customer 
redistributes the derivative works they are punished.

That is: GrSecurity (OSS) has created a contract to /Defeat/ the GPL and 
has done so successfully so far. Very successfully. The GPL is basically 
the BSD license now, since such as been allowed to stand.

This is how businesses see the GPL. They are no longer afraid: They will 
simply do what GrSecurity has done. Something that was supposed to stay 
liberated: a security patch that helped users maintain their privacy by 
not being immediately rooted when using a linux kernel on a GNU system; 
is now non-free.

With this the GPL _fails_.

NO ONE has sued GrSecurity. Thus they are seen as "having it right" 
"correct" "we can do this".

Wouldn't the FSF have standing regarding the GCC plugins atleast?
Couldn't you all rally linux-kernel copyright holders to bring a joint 
action?

References:
perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/

perens.com/static/OSS_Spenger_v_Perens/0_2018cv15189/docs1/pdf/18.pdf
(Page 10 onward of this brief gives a good recitation of the facts and 
issues