In gnu.misc.discuss Moshe Goldfarb <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:30:35 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> 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. Yes. Ghastly, isn't it? > This pretty much confirms that it is quite complex and in fact > could possibly be dangerous depending upon interpretation. Not at all. It's equally likely, in fact more likely, certain personages wish to sustain the illusion that it's "quite complex", and "possibly dangerous", for reasons best known to themselves. Simply reading it is sufficient to see its simplicity. What is complex is the copyright law under which the GPL must operate. Software writers of good faith have no difficulty at all with the GPL. Only to those seeking loopholes in it in order to violate its intentions is there any "danger" or "complexity". -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
