Actually, my position is fully backed by the fact that anyone the FSF has targeted has had their code taken from them and released. If/when someone is ever able to buy their way out of it, your original claim that they can do so may have merrit. Until then, it will remain baseless.
No one has had any code taken from them in a GPL violation. Some settled by releasing code. Others didn't have to release any code because they didn't create derivative works.
If/when someone is ever able to buy their way out of it, your original claim that they can do so may have merrit. Until then, it will remain baseless.
No one has paid because it is cheaper to release their little bit of code under the GPL. Finally reading the license for once (and I bet you haven't) will tell you that your position is rediculous. Try this part:
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.So even if you create a derivative work, they only want the distribution of it covered by the GPL. IOW, if you want to distribute, you have to comply. If you don't want to distribute, no compliance necessary.
Until then, it will remain baseless.
Only based in law, the GPL, and statements by the FSF attorneys.
I still think it's absurd that you claim to support strong copyrights, yet you don't think writers of GPL software should be able to enforce theirs.