That's certainly their right, BUT, consider this: If authors of GPL'ed code DON'T enforce the terms and conditions of the GPL, then OTHERS - less friendly - can thwart the GPL and point to a "lack of prior enforcement" as a defense. This is the same principle that makes Fox crack down on X-Files fan web sites, regardless of how "nice" the nature is. If they DON'T, then someone could copy the trademarked/copyrighted material and say "But Fox abandoned it by not enforcing it."

Unenforced, the GPL loses it protective value. THAT is the reason why there are "compliance hit squads" as it were. If nobody enforces the GPL on, say, "bash" (included in the developer image), then someone could later take bash, closed-source it, and do whatever they want, in complete violation of the GPL, precisely BECAUSE the license-owner allowed the violations in the past.

Don't believe me? Ask a lawyer. They'll tell you the same thing.

D