And somehow that argument forgets that they wrote it to work as an extension of a GPL kernel.
IOW, you somehow think its fine for them to to stand on the shoulders of all the kernel's GPL code, without respecting that kernel's GPL license.
If you don't want to GPL your work, then don't make your code a derivative of another GPL work in the first place. This is the crux of the question.
> It is THEIRS, they wrote it, they can do what they will and license it any damned way they want!
Yes, and the people who write the kernel they extended think the same way. But the license they, the kernel copyright owners, chose, is the GPL. If this scsi work is a derivate (again, _that's_ what is in the open), and they don't abide by the GPL, then they don't have a license from all the kernel copyright holders to distribute the resulting kernel.
Who is leaching who again?