Will no-one sue GrSecurity for their blatant GPL violation (of GCC and the linux kernel)?

[nipponmail]

(Note: Sending here now as this the other list was for tech discussions 
instead, oh an they lied: the pre-moderation is still on (for me, 
because they do not want this topic discussed (and have admitted so))). 
(SFConservancy hasn't done anything in years, FSF Legal is the same)
.
RMS:.
Could you share your thoughts, if any, of why no one will sue GrSecurity 
("Open Source Security" (a Pennsylvania company)) for their blatant 
violation of section 6 of version 2 of the GNU General Public License?.
.
Both regarding their GCC plugins and their Linux-Kernel patch which is a 
non-separable derivative work?.
.
They distribute such under a no-redistribution agreement to paying 
customers (the is the only distribution they do). If the customer 
redistributes the derivative works they are punished..
.
That is: GrSecurity (OSS) has created a contract to /Defeat/ the GPL and 
has done so successfully so far. Very successfully. The GPL is basically 
the BSD license now, since such as been allowed to stand..
.
This is how businesses see the GPL. They are no longer afraid: They will 
simply do what GrSecurity has done. Something that was supposed to stay 
liberated: a security patch that helped users maintain their privacy by 
not being immediately rooted when using a linux kernel on a GNU system; 
is now non-free..
.
With this the GPL _fails_..
.
NO ONE has sued GrSecurity. Thus they are seen as "having it right" 
"correct" "we can do this"..
.
Wouldn't the FSF have standing regarding the GCC plugins atleast?.
Couldn't you all rally linux-kernel copyright holders to bring a joint 
action?.
.