A few thoughts on Jonathan's opinions

A few thoughts on Jonathan's opinions

A few notes on what you've said, Jonathan:

• I think you create a false dichotomy when you say: Either the FSF no longer believes this, or it has decided that license enforcement will never be necessary for GRUB.. All of us who enforce the GPL know that it's easier to enforce GPL if you have most or all of the copyrights, but still very much possible even with only a plurality of copyright on the code (cf. BusyBox enforcement). I'd venture to say it's somewhat of a linear sliding scale: the more copyrights you hold, the easier your enforcement efforts are. The FSF clearly made a small trade-off in that regard to get something useful for GRUB development. That seems like a very reasonable and good decision to me.
• I think you're subtly indicating in the way you're arguing your case that the GPLv2 is toothless with regard to patents. I don't think that's the case. There's no question that GPLv3 is better, but that doesn't mean that the GPLv2 implicit patent license isn't still there.
• There is much current debate among lawyers about whether GPLv2-or-later is equivalent to licensing explicitly under GPLv3. I don't know the answer nor do I want to opine one way or the other, but I think it's safe to assume that reasonable people could believe both conclusions.

Disclaimer: I'm on the Board of Directors of the FSF, but these opinions are my own, not necessarily FSF's opinions.

— bkuhn