There are some problems in your logic. One is the notion that the config
files are copyrightable in the first place.
To provide an example, I distribute config files for assorted Linux-libre
kernel versions at https://jxself.org/git/?p=kernel-configs.git
You will notice there is no copyright or licensing information. This is
because such things are not copyrightable in the first place. For example:
Someone that has never seen these could run make nconfig in the kernel source
tree, go enable/disable the appropriate stuff, save that config, and obtain
an identical file. This is because it's machine generated (being made by a
human is one criteria to be eligible for copyright restrictions. This is why
those monkey pictures were deemed ineligible for copyright restrictions.)
make defconfig is another example of this.
Another is that there is only one way to say things like CONFIG_X86_64=y or
"CONFIG_64BIT is not set". You could make it say CONFIG_INTEL64BITPLEASE=y
but this will not work because the build system will not understand it. And
so, even if someone made their own config by hand, use of the same config
symbols is required in order to be compatible with the build system and have
it work. You may find this to be a good read:
http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/originality-requirements.html. I'll
quote a thing: "If a work represents one of only a few possible means of
accomplishing a task, it is not copyrightable."
Anyway, this is just one problematic part of your analysis. The thing I
really wanted to mention was:
"Also owning the Tehnoetic shop, a lawsuit on copyright infringement from a
competitor is the last thing I need."
I'd love to see *that* case! The thing is, they'd never bring it.
