"Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand(a)inf.utfsm.cl> writes:
Nobody can initiate legal action "on behalf of the GPL",
only the kernel
copyright holders could initiate such action here. And that would be
ROTFLed out of court, as /they themselves/ created the kernel with the
express, and widely documented, intention for it to be distributed widely.
Are there really no pieces of the Linux kernel source written for
purposes other than being part of the kernel, but afterwards included
in the kernel? Pieces which are licensed under the GPL, that is, not
firmware blobs. The authors of such pieces are able to initiate action
against any distributors of the Linux kernel. It's the only way we can
get a definite answer.
(It's obviously not a very productive use of everyone's time and
money, but that is often the case with lawsuits.)