|Someone wrote in mjg59,|
Sounds like a likely outcome...well, a bit less likely than using some other kernel/OS altogether, which doesn't sound that unrealistic when you consider the alternatives (spend lots of money to ensure compliance, or
risk getting get sued for not complying and then have to spend lots of money to ensure compliance).
When you can pay another company to write the software you need, pay a small licensing fee and not have to worry about being sued because it's their code, the choice seems pretty clear. If you can do the same but without the cost of licensing (by, e.g., using BSD, MIT, or similarly licensed code), all the better.
Of course, the problem with my argument is it assumes that it costs a lot of money to ensure compliance with the GPL. Generally, it's not that difficult--or it doesn't appear to be; just provide a means to get the code and you comply, right? Well, you also have to be sure that all code which needs to be under the GPL or a compatible license is released under one of those licenses. I've never helped maintain a large body of code, so I don't know how difficult or time-consuming this is, but I'd imagine that this would be the most costly part of the process.