Grsecurity stops issuing public patches, citing trademark abuse

>US law doesn't allow revocation, unless explicitly specified in license, which the GPLv2 does NOT. See sources above.

Yes it does. Licenses are revokable at will. Property law 101, idiot.
The only thing that prevents license revocation is estoppel.
(Usually arising in a contract to license a work, potentially arising from an utterance by the grantor: such as a no-revocation clause in a license document (explicit disclaimer of the right to revoke gives rise to estoppel which you can argue in-front of a court to give the revocation no effect.))

Copyright is alienable by "any operation of law": property, contract, etc. There aren't "special forms" of alienation written into the statute (there didn't need to be).

Here's someone who disagrees with you, first hit on google for the lazy, if you need someone else to listen to (and obviously don't have a casebook nor a treatise handy, because you haven't bought any since you haven't attended a school where you would need them you piece of filth):
"""
>Default Rule When Silent on Revocability
>Most courts hold that simple, non-exclusive licenses with unspecified durations that are silent on revocability are revocable at will. This means that the licensor may terminate the license at any time, with or without cause. Conversely, courts typically hold that simple non-exclusive licenses that are silent on revocability but specify a set duration are non-terminable during the set duration. Results, however, may vary based on applicable state contract law and federal law preemption principles. We find that many people are unaware of these default rules. Because of the lack of absolute clarity on the default rules themselves and the impact other provisions in a license agreement may have on their application, we believe it is important not to remain silent on revocability in a license.
""" --Sidly Austin LLP

And here's some input from the 1976 US Copyright statute, copied from one of my casebooks in my library:
US 1976 Copyright Act. SS 304(c)(6)(A)
"A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilizd under the trms of the grant after its termination, but this privledge does not extnd to th preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrightd work covered by the terminated grant."

IE: Once the permission to modify linux is revoked, no further work on grsecurity may commence: it's over.
(The license of Linux (GPLv2) lacks a no-revocation clause, GPLv3 had to be drafted for a reason (adding one in) (so you could attempt to argue estoppel)) (Licenses are revokable at will barring estoppel)

Sorry SJW piece of shit. You didn't go through law school, you don't even know the edges of the law, and you are wrong. You can believe the FSF all you want; they have an interest in hiding the truth. I'd be happy for your whole edifice to crumble as that would hurt you pro-women's rights, anti-marry-young-girls pieces of filth.

What above posts?

He's just copy/pasting his comments from other threads, and elsewhere all over the internet, including what look like IRC logs, and generally just arguing with imaginary people about things nobody said. If the missing other posts are the only thing he's said that confuses you, you're doing better than I.

When I first saw this story pop up, there was 1 comment attached, but I couldn't view it regardless of the settings I had. I checked back in a couple hours and there were two comments I couldn't see. So I have no idea what those were or why I couldn't see them. Maybe they were auto detected as spam or something?