That would be fine but the article indicates that they want to continue to use other GPL code (like the Linux kernel) without complying with the GPL. Only Busybox copyright holders have been eager to prosecute violators - removing Busybox would let vendors violate the GPL with little practical consequences.
is it realistic for someone who releases their code to expect an unrelated party dealing with a license violation to just give them a free ride to enforcement? I mean, fine if they do, but it is by no means expected. I dont disagree with how this looks on sony's part, but mucking about with other peoples license enforcement smells kind of funny. Who says sony doesnt have a license from the author on a given piece of code? I mean, sure, then linix kernel andwhatnot, we know, but hypothetically, they could be usingsoftware available to the general public under gpl, but licenced to sony including non-disclosure terms about the license - only thecopyright holders can go after them, as it should be.
If its your work and you hold the copyright, how you license, distribute, and enforce it are all up to you.
Hypothetically, Sony products could be coming bundled with unicorns. Just because something is possible does not mean that it needs to be considered. What you are saying is highly improbable. In fact if we had any chance to find out, I could bet you on this, with outrageous odds.
> If its your work and you hold the copyright, how you license, distribute, and enforce it are all up to you.
Your ability to do this also depends on the legal system, which makes it hard for the little guy with respect to a big corporation. This is why we have mechanisms like SFC.
