@sally >Even if they managed to stick to the license by letter it would be a similar case as with TiVO
The GPLv2 doesn't in fact allow tivotization.

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the ***executable***.

If the software does not execute - it isn't an executable - end of story.


The FSF just didn't want to deal with retarded judges in court who cannot grasp the concept of an executable, thus released the GPLv3 and also fixed many other discovered bugs.

To this day, the problem of intentional mis-interpretation of the GPLv2 only really exists in Linux, as those developers are against the users freedom and actually encourage the misinterpretation.

When it come to the freedom offered by the GPL-family, the only possible way to block the freedom is to license under the GPLv2-only (as licensing under a proprietary or pushover license is ineffective) and then to never enforce your license - which is what Linus intentionally does.