Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated

The Linux kernel is licenced under the GPLv2. There are several notable things about this:

What this basically comes down to is that the Linux kernel isn't really GPLv2. It's nominally licenced under a licence which is routinely violated, even with the implicit authorization of the people in charge of the project (an authorization that isn't theirs to give).

This is actually quite a bad situation. You have use cases for binary kernel modules which need to be accommodated, and people trying to accommodate them, and the result of this is to make the GPLv2 essentially a mere suggestion that, in practice, everyone violates.

This demonstrates the issue with GPLv2-style licences: if it turns out you really need to grant an exception, and the project has had a large number of external contributions, and you don't do copyright assignment, you're basically royally screwed. You have no choice but to soldier on basically hoping that no contributor to the project decides to start copyright trolling the users.

The very fact that the FSF feels the need to include “or later” in the standard licence application boilerplate demonstrates that even they think locking huge amounts of source code and compounded years of effort to a given licence, one which is quite particular and complex, is too hazardous.

Actually, it gets worse. Here's what the GPLv2 says about termination:

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

So if you violate the licence, it is terminated. That's it. Given that “you” may refer to a corporation, this creates the following disturbing possibility:

This trolling corporation could become a SCO-on-steroids. The difference is that their legal arguments are actually, seemingly, valid. This demonstrates the hazards of GPL_ONLY and encouraging people to selectively ignore the GPL.