Why not? The "eligible compilation process" only covers the case where you wish to distribute your binaries under terms other than GPLv3. In other words, using a non-eligible compilation process forces you to redistribute binaries under the GPLv3.
If commercial clients get a GPLv3 license from the PaX team, they are entitled (in fact forced) to distribute binaries under that same license, and whoever gets them can ask for the source and then proceeed in doing the same.
GPLv3 working as planned.
(Also, remember that the main difference in the GPLv3 vs. GPLv2 is that the former considers SaaS as a form of distribution, so SaaS users can ask providers for the source of any GPLv3 software they might be using while providing the service.)
Re:Grsecurity – FAQ about RAP
by icebraining on Tuesday January 10, 2017 @06:42AM
(#13364162)
Yes, I realize what happened (though, nitpicking, only because they link those binaries to GNU libraries).
What I don't understand is why you're saying that FSF is hamstrung. Seems like the process is working as intended.
That's the gist. IANAL. Ask FSF what they think about it.