Linux is licensed under the GPL, so how can it break the GPL's terms? Or are you talking about how Stallman got his panties all in a bunch when Linus decided to use the proprietary Bitkeeper as Linux's content management system? Those two just do not get along. Stallman is an egotistic ivory-tower type, while Linus is a down-to-earth realist.
The Linux license is a variant, that permits linking to libraries and OS elements without invoking the GPL. If this exception didn't exist, then Linux would be going nowhere and FreeBSD would be the darling of the commercial software vendors. All of the standard Linux libraries are LGPL licensed and there is evidence that Stallman wishes the LGPL, which allows commercial software to link to open source code, would go away.
Or are you talking about how Stallman got his panties all in a bunch when Linus decided to use the proprietary Bitkeeper as Linux's content management system? Those two just do not get along. Stallman is an egotistic ivory-tower type, while Linus is a down-to-earth realist.
No, I'm talking about LGPL vs. pure GPL and Linus Torvald's intepretation. You are correct that Linus Torvalds, despite having a die-hard communist father (or perhaps because he did), is more of a down-to-Earth realist than Stallman. If that weren't the case, Linux would be going nowhere fast.