On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:30:35 +0200, Hadron wrote: > Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/15/black_duck_gpl_web_conference_copenhaver_radcliffe/ >> >> "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract? >> >> Open source legal minds unravel license >> >> By Austin Modine in San Francisco ‧ Get more from this author >> >> Posted in Software, 15th October 2009 06:02 GMT >> >> Two prominent IP lawyers have warned that the all-pervasive General >> Public License version 2 (GPLv2) contains legally ambiguous wording that >> may be problematic for licensees. > > Impossible. > > Peter Koehlmann told us here in COLA that is was "easy" and only > "windiots" could not understand it. He is, of course, quite insane.
Just about every single one of these "what's the GPL" type threads goes on for pages. This pretty much confirms that it is quite complex and in fact could possibly be dangerous depending upon interpretation. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
