Ad writes: > I disagree. There are plenty of spots in the GPL that way too open to > interpration, which seems to be exactly the problem here.
No. The problem is that they are trying to bluff you. > I and the FAQ interpret it one way, the company interprets it another. I can "interpret" black as white, too, and if I talk fast enough I might get you to believe it. That doesn't make it "open to interpretation" in any meaningful sense. > Ultimately it's the companies interpretation of the GPL that I will abide > by... Then why did you ask? > ...it would just make sense to me that if a company releases something > under the GPL that it would result in some fairly clear cut criteria on > what can/can't be done with the software. It does. They don't like it, though, so they have invented their own "interpretation". -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
