> I don't think Alex has ever said the GPL is
> not enforceable.

I said that I don't believe that the GPL's VIRUS
is enforceable due to "mere aggregation"
clause to begin with. That leaves pretty much
the same share-alike provisions as defined by
OSL, CPL, creativecommons.org's sa1.0, and
etc., etc. -- derivatives works ONLY with no
infection of the entire collective works. GCC
libstd++ folks added "exception" to the GPL
with the effect of complete neutralization of
the GPV (General Public Virus) because Lesser
General Public Virus doesn't really work in
the world of modern programming -- C++ (in
the case of libstd++). This is telling. [L]GPL
has no future (and the same applies to all
other forms of "software anarchism" viral
licensing under the umbrella of "open source"
and "free software").

regards,
alexander.