SFC: John Deere's ongoing GPL violations: What's next

I've never used a permissive license when I've had my say. I would totally feel personally harmed should I find out a company is violating the license.

There's an ugly name for those who argue about the intent of others contrary to said others' concrete actions. I read this comment as "go ahead and walk right over Them Nerds, they're just playing coy", and if a different meaning was intended then it wasn't adequately communicated.

The choice between the GNU General Public License's second and third versions, use of the "or later" clause, and any other mode of licensing, has been thoroughly discussed online and elsewhere over the past generation of man, is well understood, and represents the copyright owner's definite and unambiguous will. Disregard for this intent can only have risen out of the same wastebucket as Internet-persistent fantasies about the GPL being "untested in court" and therefore subject to such invalidation that wouldn't leave the exploiter facing a sentence for criminal copyright infringement.

It's a crying shame that today the GPL isn't being enforced with a singular firm request first and the nuclear option an immediate second. A corporation -- such as John Deere in the context of the SFC's case here -- recognizes nothing as it does a direct effect on its bottom line; and as is apparent from their non-compliance thusfar, anything but the maximum iron fist will yield no result.