I'm having trouble seeing, apart from ignorance or misinformation, why anyone would condone GRSecurity. The code is helpful but you wouldn't want the authors in a position of authority over the operating system of a billion-plus computers.
Right now, most arguments in defense of GRSecurity are simply: "Two sides are arguing, therefore they're both wrong. Aren't I smarter for pointing it out?"
> Their research are in no way 'directly derivative' of the linux kernel. Their implementation was based on linux
This means that it's captured under the GPL, and anyone can do as they like pursuant to the license (which grsecurity has attempted, repeatedly, to constrain in contravention of that license), and that this guy has an a-gen-da and something to sell you.
Your tone seems to suggest that some obligation exists that some obligation exists to do more than share the source to any improvements.
This obligation is wholly and totally imaginary. Its as if someone gave another party an entire farm and in the contract specified that he could eat some of the food that grew from it and that someone threw a fit when the first party walked up and made a sandwich.
Seeing as there is no sane and legal way to require anyone to pay for said patches the reasonable way to fund such an effort is to get the community to voluntarily fund such an effort with whatever platform is most useful preferably in advance.
It seems that they have instead chosen to rely on a mixture of manufactured drama, illegal threats, and general unpleasantness to keep their efforts from being well integrated with mainstream. While this remains so they can offer definable value.
In the long run I predict bankruptcy and irrelevance for a company that few care about now and none will care about later.