On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:31:38 +0000 (UTC), Alan Mackenzie wrote: > In gnu.misc.discuss Moshe Goldfarb <moshegoldf...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> 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. > > 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.
You make an interesting point ! > 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". I was thinking more along the lines of the suits in major corporations being shy of the GPL for those reasons. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss