Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > [...] >> Dan's blog entry quoted a lawyer who's being consulted during the draftign >> of GPLv3 who said that parts of GPLv3 aren't legally sound. > > He said that GPLv3 draft is even worse than GPLv2 which nobody > understands.
Well, it is certain you don't understand GPLv2, as your predictions regarding its interpretation in the courts tend to end up wrong, making you call the judges names. > The legally unsound bit was about the FSF "position" regarding > dynamic linking. Which is not codified in either license since it depends on local copyright laws. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
