With the GPLv2 (as opposed to the v3), and "distributed" ownership of the copyright, respecting the community's standards for enforcement is particularly import

With the GPLv2 (as opposed to the v3), and "distributed" ownership of the copyright, respecting the community's standards for enforcement is particularly important. Say FooCorp violates the Linux kernel's GPLv2 license. When FooCorp do this, their license is instantly terminated. Say the SFC notices, and goes after FooCorp. The SFC helps FooCorp come back into compliance. The SFC then re-instates FooCorp's license to the portion of the Linux kernel that the SFC owns the copyright to (and the portions owned by others that the SFC represents). However, FooCorp's license to the rest of the Linux kernel is _still void_! They are in violation of the copyright of most of the other copyright holders! Patrick (for example) could then sue FooCorp for violating his copyright, even though they are now in compliance with the original license and have worked things out with the SFC. He could probably make a decent living just following the SFC around and extorting everyone the SFC brings into compliance. Being able to resume using the Linux kernel after violating the GPLv2 and then coming back into compliance fundamentally relies on the rest of the copyright holders following the community-oriented principles and treating the license as re-instated. Admittedly, this is just one aspect of the community oriented principles.