Some enforcement efforts have been controversial, particularly the VmWare suit and other efforts by SFConservancy. I wouldn't call them trolls, but a lot of people think they are too heavy-handed.
On the other hand, with nobody wielding a stick, there is no real incentive not to abuse free licenses - which is exactly why the GPL exists in the first place.
Whether or not you think they are too heavy-handed, or think they are trolls: SF Conservancy-like behavior isn't the type of behavior being addressed here.
If following the license is too much to ask for, what exactly does "not heavy handed" mean?
A linux developer demanding money from GPL violators is (seemingly) what triggered this action. See http://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-beats-internal-legal-thre...
>McHardy has sued companies for Linux GPLv2 violations in over 38 cases. In one, he'd requested a contractual penalty of €1.8 million. The company also claimed McHardy had already received over €2 million from his actions.
>what exactly does "not heavy handed" mean
It means not permanently revoking their licence to use the code again, even once they have become compliant. It's a common complaint made about the GPLv2 which was clarified in GPLv3
The "enforcement" that Torvalds wants is what you see with Android today: Everyone ships blobs of kernel builds, with the source never released.
If I want to bloody recompile the LK on my phone to install a proper linux, that or other GPL tools shouldn't be blockers.