This is one of Linus' main points in the discussion, it will change the tone and signal to partners that interactions with the kernel community will carry with it interactions with the Software Conservancy, which most companies will see as an expensive, frustrating and pointless waste of resources.

> If they are not violating the terms of the license, what would change?

Increased vigilance in enforcement of anything almost invariably means greater incidence of prosecuting non-violators, causing them to incur costs to establish that they are not in violation.

In the case of Linux, this increases the expected costs of using the kernel even in accord with the license.

Conservancy are only interested in compliance, not in increasing costs:

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...

What the Conservancy is "interested in" is a different thing than what interaction with them causes.

Enforcers often are (or claim to be) interested only in compliance. Their efforts to secure compliance where they believe compliance is lacking incur costs that would not otherwise exist, even where compliance already exists.

A dangerously close analog to the "nothing to hide"[0] argument.

As mentioned in the parent article and other linked discussions, there is not certainty in litigation. The terms of the license are complex, and there can be healthy debate over what is and is not a violation.

Membership in the 5% and 95% is not clear until after litigation. You do not get to decide that you are in compliance. You get to take actions which you understand to be in compliance. If someone disagrees, they can sue.

Taking a stance of aggressive litigation will make everyone think twice about using software that opens them up to expensive litigation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

"A dangerously close analog to the "nothing to hide"[0] argument."

No, it really isn't. The idea that a company that is complying would walk away because those that aren't are gone after is foolish. It's like saying a freelancer shouldn't pursue people who stiff them on payment, because other potential clients might hear about it, and choose not to hire them.

Of course, a freelancer who has a healthy practice and good relationship with many clients can and likely will lose some clients if they take a publicly aggressive stance with other clients.

And, be clear, egregious violations aren't the concern. The concern is if you see a freelancer constantly partaking of expensive or just annoying audits on good faith partners. It can drive folks away.

This is why the lines are drawn at 95/5. If it were actually the other direction, things would be different.

FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt) I think

For the same reason that video game companies that use invasive DRM just end up turning off legitimate customers. You treat legitimate customers like criminals, and people don't want to be your customers.

Legitimate customers of the kernel know it's GPLv2 from the start, as well as requirements of that licence. It is not that complex at all.