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

[Moshe Goldfarb]

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

> In gnu.misc.discuss Moshe Goldfarb <moshegoldfarb@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:30:35 +0200, Hadron wrote:
> 
>>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@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.