Speaking as someone who has a non-trivial amount of kernel code in my name (contributed before I started working for a Linux company), my huge objection to the SFC is their interpretation of the GPLv2 license, in particular about "scripts to control compilation and installation of the executable". To my mind, their expansive interpretation of that clause is tantamount to an anti-Tivoization clause, which is the primary reason I and many other kernel developers rejected the GPLv3 license.
So when he uses a busybox breach to try to enforce his view of the GPLv2 license on code that *I* own, I'm naturally going to object and consider his actions wrong from a moral and ethical point of view. Which is why I'm completely supportive of the Toybox effort.
That's not to say that I support blatant violations of the GPL; if there are manufacturers of Android devices that aren't coughing up source code, then we should go after them. But using busybox as a backdoor way of enforcing an anti-Tivoization effort as it applies to the Linux Kernel is Just Wrong. And as a result, if I were going to go after someone who was abusing the copyright on the Linux Kernel, the SFC wouldn't be my first choice as lawyers...
(Speaking only for myself, and not for any of my current or previous employers...)