Don Diego is talking about the case where you distribute GPLed code where
you have *no* agreement with any patent licensors. This is perfectly
acceptable, at least wrt the licence.
It is a fallacy to say that every distributor of GPLed software must ensure they
have blanket downstream licences to all potentially applicable patents. The only
thing refusing to distribute protects against is legal risk to the *distributor*, and
a lesser risk to the recipient from the *patent holder* - not the licensor of the
See also my other reply, an uncle of sorts to this one.