Comment Re:Nah, BSD license is still superior & non-vi (Score 3, Interesting) 128
You have to be a complete and utter moron [to] accidentally GPL your code.
Or you have to be developing a large proprietary product that runs on Linux. My company spends lots of time and money ensuring that our turnkey application (and many others), which is a large COTS product we've augmented with millions of lines of enhancements, stays in compliance with the GPL, including having a full-time IP attorney on staff to help us stay in compliance (not find loopholes!). When we've made enhancements to GPL code, we've contributed them back; in a large company that jealously guards its secret sauce, that involves lots of paperwork.
We use a COTS product to analyze our code base and look for things that might be out of compliance. In one case that it flagged, an obscure library we built from source for inclusion in our product was covered by fourteen licenses, including the GPL, and my favorite license name of all time, the "Do Whatever the Fuck You Want" license. We lucked out on that one--the next major version of that library was only covered under the MIT license, so to stay in compliance, all we had to do was upgrade. When a piece of code is covered by the GPL and a more permissive license, but doesn't specify the conditions under which each one applies, it gives our attorney headaches.
We don't want to cheat, and we put our money where our collective mouth is. And we're neither a rare case nor a particularly progressive company. No large company wants to be the first one to test the GPL in a high-profile court case where they're the Big Evil Profiteers spitting in the faces of the people who wrote code and give it away for the greater good.