One consequence is that this kind of software could be made GPLv3+ without having to get back to every contributor. While this would also have been possible with the usual GPLv2+ licensing, other licensing decisions (like the special lenient licensing for Bison-generated code, or for some static library stubs, or the division line between GFDL-licensed documentation and GPLed code) really require the copyright holder to act.
It's also telling that the SCO/IBM copyright case disaster (that is still dragging on) happened over the "just by writing code and handing it over" managed Linux kernel rather than any of FSF-maintained software.
Now it turns out that IBM is quite likely to prevail in this case, but SCO will go out of business without having any substance left to pay damages, court costs or whatever else to IBM, leaving them with accumulated costs likely going into hundreds of millions.
If that kind of court case had landed at the doorsteps of the FSF rather than IBM, the FSF would long be broke now, never mind that they would have been in the right.
So this is again a case where the choices of the FSF have proven to be a nuisance quite above the "let's just do what works and nothing else" stance, but a nuisance that seems to have been prudent in hindsight.
Again, it is a sad statement about the world how many of those overcautious and paranoid decisions have proven to be quite justified in hindsight.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds