I didn&#x27;t claim that at all.<p>The other poster stated a partial argument that &quot;who the hell are we gonna find that A) is actually qualified to judge this sort of thing&quot;.  I then stated that <i>IF</i> literally no one was able to adjudicate it, then there would no teeth to the GPL (since anyone who wanted non-compliance would just binary kernel module everything).  In other words, for the sake of argument, I was granting the other poster their position, and stating the outcome of that line of logic.  Then I immediately disagreed with the base assumption saying &quot;I believe that&#x27;s not really the case though.&quot;.<p>Continuing the other poster&#x27;s logical line (again, even though I disagree that a court could not settle the issue), <i>if</i> at some point a court came down and said, &quot;Regardless of the text of the GPL itself, it is completely legal to link binary blobs against the linux kernel, and that linking does not create a derivative work&quot;, then the result of that line of reasoning would end in a weakening of the GPL because it would allow companies to &#x27;lock away&#x27; the source code in direct opposition to the spirit of the GPL.  Also note, that if the courts said something like &quot;We cannot find any person in the entire world who is qualified to judge this issue&quot;, then it would have the same effect because abusers of the GPL would know that enforcement was not a possibility (thus the GPL losing it&#x27;s teeth).  I think it&#x27;s hard to argue that <i>if</i> (in the counterfactual world where there was no one qualified to judge the violation) it would be possible to enforce copyright on the GPL.<p>Happily, we don&#x27;t live in that world.