Reply to post:

This isn't accurate, to say the least.

GPL doesn't cover any future related works nor does it oblige the authors of the previous versions to release any further ones to the public, their clients or to anyone else.

You are correct that the GPL says nothing about anyone having to distribute to any particular person - so yes, GRS can pick and choose who they deal with.

But they are freely admitting that "we are selling you this GPL2 code, you have the right to redistribute it, but if you exercise that right then we'll do something to you (in this case, withhold future versions)". That IS putting a constraint on you exercising your rights under the GPL2.

Just like "free elections" where you can vote for anyone, but don't expect to find more than a pile of ash where your home was if you vote for anyone but "the official candidate", are not free elections. Just like all those business owners were quite free to accept or reject an offer of insurance from the local mafia/whatever.

Now, is this case about defamation or about the GPL ? Well the case depends on whether BP was correct in his assessment. If he's correct then the case should fail, if he's wrong then he could lose. So before the judge can decide how to rule, he can't avoid determining if BP is correct. SO I suspect that this will see the argument tested properly in court.