Copyright violation isn't restricted to verbatim reproductions. I sympathize with eps. There are also a good number of people, believe it or not, who think that

Copyright violation isn't restricted to verbatim reproductions. I sympathize with eps. There are also a good number of people, believe it or not, who think that GPLv3 is too vague with its "distribution" criteria that a court could determine that it's effectively the same as AGPLv3. So if there's a policy not to use AGPL, which is fairly common because SaaS is an easy way to create the "secret money making sauce" of a business otherwise built on open source, GPLv3 will also suffer adoption. eps' general concern is that this is entirely a court matter; the spirit of the GPL and sharing is meaningless to the law because at the end of the day there are only so many ways you can type "LIST_INIT(&new_sched->new);" and if a shitty programmer/programmer's company is suing you and has evidence you looked at that line of code that may be enough for a shitty judge to side with them. For similar reasons I don't have a habit of looking at patents (though that's usually because patents, even non-software-patents, are shit and obvious to the layman let alone someone in the field), but I do read (and have contributed to) GPL code.