coordinated compliance efforts addresses the issues of this thread

[Rich Felker]

On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 04:49:02PM -0300, Alain Mouette wrote:
> 
> 
> Em 09-09-2012 00:52, Mike Frysinger escreveu:
> >On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> >>The legal rights to kernel code of course belong to the kernel
> >>developers, who are actively working to undermine enforcement.
> >
> >some developers don't want to enforce, some do, and many don't care
> >either way.  saying "the kernel developers are actively working to
> >undermine enforcement" is overly broad and simply wrong.
> >-mike
> 
> Why is this an issue if both the kernel and Busybox are GPL?

The issue is that kernel developers have not stepped up to enforce the
GPL when companies infringe. This gap has been partially filled by
Busybox enforcement; when a settlement is reached over GPL
infringement, the settlement terms almost always include the
requirement to get into conformance for _ALL_ GPL infringements in
their products, not just the infringement against Busybox. Of course
there's no legal requirement that this be in the terms of the
settlement, but a company who refuses to settle with terms amicable to
the Free Software community might force the issue to go before a
court, costing them a lot more...

> Doesn't GPL exist exactly for this? So that other GPL project can
> share their code?

I don't see how that's related to the license enforcement efforts.

Rich