>Really outside of the FSF, the only adoption is in dual-licensers who use it to drive purchases of the alternatively-licensed sources.

Not true. There are tons of projects that use GPLv3+ or GPLv2+. There's certainly adoption.

Enforcement of the license people agreed to will cause people to avoid using the license?

The only way that makes sense is if people thought that the GPL was the thing to use was due to it being toothless, a notion that it's strictly better to disabuse people of.

> Enforcement of the license people agreed to will cause people to avoid using the license?

If it means lawsuits, yes. Companies will either seek out a non-GPL solution, or they will be even more secretive about their use of linux. Either way, linux loses and 95% of linux users lose....and the violations will continue anyway.

So unless we let companies break the law, they won't give us jobs?

...or they could comply with the license they agreed to in the first place.

You've created a catch 22 here.

There is no catch 22. You simply have to figure out what the goals actually are. Linus' goal is to have a vibrant community that has access to the changes he approves in the kernel. The FSF's goal is to eradicate non-free software.

Linus doesn't care about the odd scofflaw because they don't interfere with his goal. The FSF on the other hand cannot abide scofflaws because their only goal is to eliminate them.

And yet at the end of the day, Linus chose a license that demands its users release any changes they distribute, rather than a permissive license like the BSDs.

Linus probably doesn't care about the odd scofflaw because he has better things to do (like maintain a kernel) than to juggle lawsuits.

This is why the SF Conservancy exists.