"Do you, perhaps, have a commercial interest you'd like to disclose?"
No, I only have a professional and an ethical interest, being a security-conscious system engineer and an informed long-time (~9 years) Grsecurity user. And I just don't feel like silently observing how people that have my deepest respect for their work, as well as for the values it's driven by, are having their names trampled into the mud for no good reason.
Now speaking of this:
"More commonly, Section 3(b) is used, where the source is promised separately from the binary. In this case, the source must be made available to anyone who asks for it."
Even though I understand that you don't imply that distribution of Grsecurity patches is covered by GPLv2 section 3, I'd still like to make it clear that it is covered by GPLv2 sections 1 and 2, which don't oblige OSS Inc. to make the patches available to anyone.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
