Re: Psystar's legal reply brief in response to Apple

[Hyman Rosen]

On 8/6/2010 4:42 PM, ZnU wrote:
> This is, at the very least, extremely squirrely, in that they're
> effectively redefining the word "modify" to obfuscate the rights already
> present under copyright law.

This is how legal documents are written. The definitions section
isn't hidden, after all. If you choose to not read the whole GPL
but jump into the middle to read a sentence or two, it's possible
that you will be misled.

In any case, when dealing with a license, the first question is
always to determine whether a license is required at all for the
activity you wish to perform. If the answer is "no", then the
license need not be examined at all. So even if the GPL had not
qualified its definition of "modify" the result would be the same.