[JoshTriplett]

First, the GPLv3 has absolutely nothing to do with this. The enforcement cases in question involve the GPLv2.

Second, it hardly seems "anti-business" to require everyone (businesses included) to comply with the license agreements of the software they use.

And third, the entire issue of enforcement only came up in this context because of this remarkably coincidental timing for LF to decide that it no longer wants community representation. It's sad that the best-case scenario is "just" that this change occurred for entirely unrelated reasons, despite the timing; I'd certainly hope that was the reason, rather than the much scummier possibility of changing the rules with one specific candidate in mind, out of fear that they might get elected.

[Lazare]

> Second, it hardly seems "anti-business" to require everyone (businesses included) to comply with the license agreements of the software they use.

I'm old enough to remember when following license agreements was pro-business. Has anyone told the BSA yet?

[egroat]

For those of us not quite so old, who are the BSA?

I presume you don't mean the Birmingham Small Arms Company

[Lazare]

Like Icelancer said, the Business Software Alliance (although apparently they've dropped the "Business" part of the name). Back in the day, they tried to be the RIAA/MPAA of the business software industry; somewhat infamously they ran campaigns urging employees to "bust their boss" by turning the company they work for in for using unlicensed software, and ran cringe-worthy PSAs about the evils of piracy.

A relic of the days when Microsoft was powerful and evil, Apple was for hippies, and clouds were things in the sky. Seemed kind of scary back then though. :)

Wikipedia has some juicy details (cash bounties, hounding third world countries, etc): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSA_(The_Software_Alliance)

[icelancer]

Likely the Software Alliance.

http://www.bsa.org/about-bsa