[drewcrawford]

> The question of law is if threatening recipients who exercise their rights qualifies as a restriction on them exercising their rights. Thinking that it does is not a fundamental misunderstanding of the text.

It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, and it is not (an open) question of law.

In the US for example, you have the right to free speech. But except in very unusual circumstances, your employer can fire you for exercising it. Whether that threat is a restriction on your rights is perhaps a question in philosophy or ethics, but from a legal point of view it's very clear: your employer is not restricting your speech, they are restricting their own hiring policy.

So it is here. Legally speaking, you are not restricted from redistributing the software. You may be restricted from GRSecurity wanting to do business with you afterwards but you don't have a right to be someone's customer under the GPL, you only have the right to corresponding binaries.

[SwellJoe]

"In the US for example, you have the right to free speech. But except in very unusual circumstances, your employer can fire you for exercising it."

This is a trolling technique known as derailing. It seems to have worked a little since most of the replies are about "free speech", which isn't what this conversation is about.

[chx]

You are talking nonsense. The only "right to free speech" there is

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

This is fundamentally different from the GPL situation. Much closer is intimidation which is recognized as a criminal offense in many US states.

[drewcrawford]

You are talking nonsense. The "right to free speech" in the United States has developed over hundreds of years of jurisprudence. It is impossible to summarize here but for starters involves not only Congress but also states (Gitlow v NY) and even private parties (Snyder v. Phelps). I don't mean to suggest it is arbitrarily broad but it is certainly much broader than to say it is "only" the text of the first amendment.

Secondly, "intimidation" carries a very specific legal meaning, for example here's the Montana statute [0]:

    (1) A person commits the offense of intimidation when, with the purpose to cause another to perform or to omit the performance of any act, the person communicates to another, under circumstances that reasonably tend to produce a fear that it will be carried out, a threat to perform without lawful authority any of the following acts: 

     (a) inflict physical harm on the person threatened or any other person; 
     (b) subject any person to physical confinement or restraint; or 
     (c) commit any felony. 

Unless GRSecurity is threatening to break your legs, kidnap you, or rob your store, they are not intimidating you.

What we are talking about is refusing to do business with you, which is very legal. There are some exceptions, such as if the basis for that refusal is due to your race/sex, or if GRSecurity is a cartel, or if they are refusing in order to obstruct an investigation into some other illegal activity, but I'm not aware of those kinds of facts here.

[0] http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/5/45-5-203.htm

[gizmo686]

In the US, your only "right" to free speech is protection from the government restricting your speech. Indeed, if your employer is the government, then there are significant (but not absolute) limitations on how much they can retaliate for your speech.

[drewcrawford]

No, you also have a right to free speech against private actors (in certain circumstances). For one example, see Snyder v. Phelps.

[gizmo686]

If that case were decided the other way, it would mean that government had a law that restricting their right to free speech. You will notice that they did not have the right to speak at the funeral, because the private entity running the funeral is not obligated to give them freedom of speech.

It is true that there are exceptions to the "congress shall make no laws ..." part of the first amendment; so by analogy, there might be some exceptions to the GPL's "no further restrictions" clause, but you have not explained why grsecurity falls into any of those hypothetical exceptions.

[jbapple]

> In the US for example, you have the right to free speech. But except in very unusual circumstances, your employer can fire you for exercising it.

Are you sure about this? Are you an attorney? I am not.

I ask because it was my impression that, more than each individual having a right to free speech, each individual has a right to be free from a certain set of governmental restrictions or punishments for their speech, and that this is also true of the non-governmental-employer-employee relationship, but the set is smaller.

For instance, it was my impression that:

(A) People who are not governmental employees have the right to be free from the government restricting them from criticizing Congress in most locations at most times (and have the right to be free from the government punishing them for this criticism)

(B) Governmental employees have fewer rights that (A) in certain respects related to their employment

(C) People who are non-governmental employees can generally be fired for their speech, though not for certain speech, like stating that she is pregnant or whistleblowing to the federal government (under some circumstances)

But I am not a lawyer.

[lowpro]

Free speech applies to to public (government) entities. You can prevent someone from exercising their rights if they are within your private property. In public spaces this isn't the case, as it's public, but an employer doesn't have to allow any freedoms to their employees (minus human rights violations, which are explicitly stated in law).

So a company could say you aren't allowed to say a single word during work hours while working for them. They would also not have employees.

[cma]

He's talking about the right granted in the contract, not something analogous to the right of no government abridgment of free speech.