And, Yes I am a lawyer.
Yes GRSecurity is contravening the "u can't put any additional restrictions not mentioned in the text of this license" clause of the GPL; vs both the Linux Kernel and the GCC "plugins" they distribute subject to their(GRSecurity's) "no redistribution" clause (which has been effective: the source has not leaked: GRSecurity has made it's patches to the linux kernel and GCC proprietary)
The GCC "plugins" are non-separable derivative works, just as their linux-kernel patches are non-separable derivative works. They only work regarding the parent work.
Don't believe me: read the real player case then. Go on. Read it. If you even make some 3rd party program that messes with the look of the other program you can be violating the copyright on the other program. Go read the case. There are others but when I tell you people you just say "DURR WHY NOT JUST DISTRIBUTe A DiFF and GeT aRoUnD the GpL thaT wAy"
Why won't RMS sue? Because he has women lawyers surrounding him who don't want to do shit. That's actually their job: to dissuade RMS etc from taking any Copyright action and upsetting the "GPL-as-effectivly-BSD-Licensed" status-quoe that emerged.
The only courageous one was Bruce Perens who fought abit of the good fight.
Note: ANY of these federal copyright lawsuits would cost probably half-a-million or more for the Copyright owner to prosecute.
RMS's foundation doesn't want to do it.
GPL rots in it's grave.
