Along with that Grsec then says that if while the patch is GPLv2 if you distribute them they'll never let you subscribe again to get the patch in the future.

That's a pretty interesting loophole in the GPL: apparently (at least with V2), it might be fine to impose consequences for exercising your rights while technically giving them to you. It certainly violates the spirit of the GPL even if it doesn't violate the letter.

It does not impose amy restrictions on getting the code. You need to write a bot to get status updates though.

Mailing list is not the code.

If he starts filtering on the web server or rejecting direct source requests, he starts violating the letter of GPL 2.

I'm not sure that your claim about where the line is holds up: the GPLv2 never requires you to give your source to anyone unless you first give them binaries. That's why web sites don't have to give out their sources to everyone who visits their site if they use a GPL library for instance.

In any case, if what you say is correct, the grsecurity team are still trying to hold the threat of a more annoying experience over their users in order up prevent them from exercising their rights under the GPLv2.

They've turned core infrastructure enhancements into what might as well be one of Microsoft's "reference source" deals, or a EULA.

According to the license they don't have to provide the source code to anyone except those that got the compiled product.

If you take an open source product, modify it and only use it in-house you don't have to provide source code to anyone.