

Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > Right, the FAQ on FSF is mostly an opinion piece based on the FSF
> > interpretation of the license. I would consider this a somewhat
> > "biased" view, TBH.
> Er, the FSF wrote the darn license, though. So their interpretation 
> is as 
> close as you can get to the actual intention of the legal text.

Almost - the computing world changed a lot since the GPL v2 was 
written. So yes, their intentions probably haven't changed a lot over 
the years, but that doesn't mean the GPL v2 is still adequate to 
express them. It leaves a lot open for interpretation, which does make 
it a poor license IMO.


Other related posts: