[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"

From: Moshe Goldfarb
Subject: Re: [LMAO] El Reg: "GPLv2 - copyright code or contract?"
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:35:58 -0400
User-agent: 40tude_Dialog/

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:31:38 +0000 (UTC), Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> In gnu.misc.discuss Moshe Goldfarb <> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:30:35 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>> Alexander Terekhov <> writes:
>>>> "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.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]