[Tfug] GPL Worthless?

[Bexley Hall]

Hi,

To start, let me make it clear that I don't run an Linux variants
and avoid GPL'd offerings as much as possible.

Linux's (vs. any of the other free kernels & OS's) claim to fame
seems to be its embracing of the GPL -- to virally allow software
based on it to reproduce.

Yet, looking at Linux based devices in the *market*, it seems that
very few manufacturers seem to take those license terms seriously!

Some make sources available (with a bit of digging).  Very few
go beyond this to *encourage* modification of those sources
(e.g., even something as simple as documenting the build process).

Many *only* make the sources available -- with an attitude that
borders on *contempt* for users looking for those sources!
["All we LEGALLY have to do is give you the sources.  Don't even
*try* to ask for support!  ("Oh, but if you happen to find some
really nasty bug in our implementation, we will begrudgingly
accept a fully commented patch identifying the problem and its
rememedy -- though we make no promises as to whether or not we'll
credit you with that fix!")]

And, I suspect the vast majority of the instances of GPL'd
devices purchased with *no* compliance with GPL terms is the
norm.  (just looking at the number of tablets running atop
a linux kernel WITHOUT available sources should prove that
point!)

And, there seems to be no litigation in place to actively
protect the terms of that license.

So, can someone tell me what the *value* of a linux kernel
is likely to be over any of the other non-GPL, FOSS kernels
out there?

[Sorry, I don't mean this to sound religious.  Rather, don't
understand how something that isn't enforced/assured can have
any practical *value* -- especially if that *thing* is what
its advocates are promoting!]

--don