Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)
I rather use Mozilla Public License 2.0, Eclipse Public License 2.0, or EUPL 1.2 for copyleft purposes.<p>Strong copyleft as a concept has no legal reality. Linking a program to another don't produce a derivative work.<p><a href="https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/news/why-viral-licensing-ghost" rel="nofollow">https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/news/why-viral-l...</a><p>FSF is full of baloney about how static or dynamic linking is different than communicating for example through sockets. To be able to use the program I have to link it. What manner I choose to do that or available to me should not matter. I should also be able to reproduce portions of a program necessary for linking. Interoperability does not interfere with the legitimate interest of the licensor, or conflict with normal usage.