On Tue, 05 May 2009 12:36:00 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote: > On Tue, 5 May 2009 13:01:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out >> this bit o' wisdom: >> >>> On Tue, 5 May 2009 07:13:19 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Nice summary of standard legal procedure, corner cases, and >>>> descriptions of uninformed people. >>>> >>>> You know, the tip-of-the-iceberg stuff that people focus on for >>>> purposes of FUD, while the vast majority /depend/ on the GPL. >>> >>> None of which supports Alan's argument that nobody can honestly >>> misunderstand the GPL. >> >> Nobody can honestly not understand the main meanings of the GPL. >> >> That being said, version 3 is a bit more difficult to follow. > > ahh.. now you move the goalpost.. the "main meaning". The main meaning > is certainly clear, but the details are where the trouble lies, and > where most people don't understand or interpret differently.
Some the misunderstandings you cite are effects of the GPL. For instance, sure, there's only a downstream requirment, but, in effect improvements will make their way upstream. So, what's the harm of this misconception? -Thufir _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
