In theory and in practice... (Score 1)

First off, IANAL. I do believe that GPL loopholes will have a significant influence on the direction taken by commercial Linux development and should be worked out by legal types. However, I also believe that falling back to legalease behavior will help neither the Corel situation nor GNU/Linux effort in general. In fact, it could have disasterous consequences.

Lawsuits involving licensing issues in Linux development and distribution will put the GPL to test and set dangerous legal precedents for OSS. They could partition development and restrict the freedom of distribution that has always been the cornerstone of the GPL for commerce. And if the GPL stops being applicable to commerce, OSS stops being applicable to the free-market economies that determine what lives and what dies for the mainstream.

BESIDES.

There is a big difference between what the Corel license accomplishes in theory and in practice. Frankly, I see the term at the top in a lot of licenses I don't read. And It's the *only* one I see. I scroll past the rest and hit the big, friendly button. For most practical intents and purposes, it's meaningless. Corel can't tell whether the guy that clicks "Accept" is 90 or 14, and they don't care anyway until they see him in court.

So, I say address the issue, but keep it out of court. Refine the GPL. Make sure that OSS has a very sound legal foundation. If it's good enough, you'll never have to use it.