>It's not in violation of any spirit either, as there's nothing that says they have to give you their things, as copyright holders.
Their work is a derivative work.
The contributors to linux very likely intended that any derivative works also be distributed. If any contributor to linux intended this, there may very well be an unwritten clause in the contract which exists between the parties, part of which exists in the form of the document you know as a "copyright license" (WTF did you think it was? A royal patent?). Rarely does a court decide a dispute of this sort solely on the four corners of a document. Only when the document is wholly integrated does that occur.
I don't see those words there in the GPLv2. (Even if those words exist, action taken by the parties can be used as evidence against this, if the court allows the evidence of such to be presented).
Their work is a derivative work.
The contributors to linux very likely intended that any derivative works also be distributed. If any contributor to linux intended this, there may very well be an unwritten clause in the contract which exists between the parties, part of which exists in the form of the document you know as a "copyright license" (WTF did you think it was? A royal patent?). Rarely does a court decide a dispute of this sort solely on the four corners of a document. Only when the document is wholly integrated does that occur.
I don't see those words there in the GPLv2. (Even if those words exist, action taken by the parties can be used as evidence against this, if the court allows the evidence of such to be presented).