After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Tue, 5 May 2009 13:01:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>>> 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.
No goal post movement. I already said you were bringing up "corner cases"
(i.e. not the "main meaning"). Unlike you, I don't feel any need to "win"
an argument, though I do like to be correct.
Yeah, though, the devil's in the details.
And lawyers are great at manufacturing details!
In any case, it is obvious that GPL 2 was very understandable by many many
people (e.g. Linus Torvalds), and they believed it served their interests
best.
And even GPL 3 isn't doing too badly.
--
If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything.
-- Mark Twain
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
