This is not actually true, I bought four Avalon units. (I didn't see any reason to whine about being snubbed in public, but since it's now being repeated as fact— I might was well correct it).

What a really bad choice of examples. Allow me to count the ways:
(1) None of the bitcoin developers are accusing Avalon of making a license violation.
(2) Bitcoin itself is MIT licensed, so it wouldn't be an issue for Bitcoin proper, for better or worse.
(3) Our build process is entirely deterministic and you can git a bit-by-bit identical copy of the binaries by following the process.

And yes— license violations are rampant and seldom enforced. But the GPL(v3) is farily unambiguous about what is required, and Kano is unambiguous that they would actually enforce the license— so, I assume, would Luke-Jr (seeing that he is one of very few people I've ever seen actually enforce a BSD/MIT style license!).