I'm sure you really don't intend to say that the copyrights on the Linux Kernel are not being enforced at all except by the SFC. After all there's the SFLC and gpl-violations. So may I humbly offer a couple suggestions.
First, consider replacing the word "impunity" with something more appropriate. Making a statement that if someone ships the BusyBox replacement they can violate the Linux Kernel with impunity is very misleading. Just because they ship with the replacement does not protect them from the enforcement efforts of either the SFLC or gpl-violations after all.
Second, consider altering the line indicating Linux Kernel enforcement will grind to a halt to specifically state that the enforcement by the SFC will grind to a halt.
Just a couple friendly suggestions for slightly better word usage to avoid misunderstandings.
Perhaps a correction to the article is appropriate
I'm sure you really don't intend to say that the copyrights on the Linux Kernel are not being enforced at all except by the SFC. After all there's the SFLC and gpl-violations. So may I humbly offer a couple suggestions.
First, consider replacing the word "impunity" with something more appropriate. Making a statement that if someone ships the BusyBox replacement they can violate the Linux Kernel with impunity is very misleading. Just because they ship with the replacement does not protect them from the enforcement efforts of either the SFLC or gpl-violations after all.
Second, consider altering the line indicating Linux Kernel enforcement will grind to a halt to specifically state that the enforcement by the SFC will grind to a halt.
Just a couple friendly suggestions for slightly better word usage to avoid misunderstandings.
RAS