companies are not one unified thing, though they may project that and internalize that. You don't think that there is internal tension ? differing opinions among staff attorneys?

second however, it seems that there is a growing conceit among the cloud-native management, that they can ignore GPL, throw it into code-regrinding services, and generally act with impunity.

Random company with a device and inconvenienced by the GPL is one thing, but it beggars belief that Red Hat, which has been working with GPLed code since 1993 that is one of the cornerstones of its business model, struggles to comprehend what GPL was intended to accomplish.

> You don't think that there is internal tension ? differing opinions among staff attorneys?

In this case? Absolutely not. I'm yet to hear someone with legal training say this might be a problem.

> second however, it seems that there is a growing conceit among the cloud-native management, that they can ignore GPL

Red Hat isn't ignoring the GPL. I'd don't see the relevance of this digression.

And this is Red Hat we're talking about, one of the few companies that managed to build a sustainable business around mostly GPL-ed software.

Except we're talking about IBM now, right? Red Hat is not the same entity it once was, although may still have some or many of the same engineers on staff.

The best I think we can hope for is individual engineers that have a major stake in important software deciding to leave the company.