The conservancy&#x27;s current level of input to the debate is appropriate. They&#x27;re clearly not expending resources they don&#x27;t have for this discussion. Also, they spent <i>years</i> with VMWare before it finally began legal action. What we have now is a discussion.<p>It sounds as if you don&#x27;t think there should be discussion at all. &quot;These licenses are incompatible but screw it, ship it anyway&quot; is shitty behavior we expect from noname WiFi router OEMs.<p>&gt; Apart from idealistic purity, what has that effort actually done? Has it given us access to source code we don&#x27;t already have?<p>If we wanted a Linux that could be used like this, it&#x27;d be LGPL. That is exactly what the LGPL is for. Really. It&#x27;s that simple.<p>I absolutely think people should think twice before blindly depending on or mashing up GPL software - at the moment they don&#x27;t, and that&#x27;s how we get these messes.<p>It&#x27;s an important landmark in the history of the GPL and I find it completely weird that anyone would expect the conservancy to remain silent on it. In terms of their long-time resourcing problem, that&#x27;s got nothing to do with this case and everything to do with VMWare pulling out all the stops to get their existing support pulled.<p>I rather suspect if the conservancy cared about their long-term survival and keeping everybody happy <i>that</i> much they simply wouldn&#x27;t have pursued the VMWare case.