Hadron<hadronqu...@gmail.com> writes: > Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> writes: > >> David Kastrup wrote: >> [...] >>> just a single hit to be relieved from compliance. So what does it tell >>> us when they choose to comply after all (as they have consistently ended >>> up with so far)? >> >> Like >> >> http://download.comtrend.com/CT-5361T-A131-306CTU-C04_R01_consumer_release.tar.gz > > Isn't making Hymen and co look silly a bit like slapping a wheelchair > bound ginger stepson? It seems just so easy. What continually amazes me > though is a certain claim about how "so easy the GPL is to understand" > . This in the face of this and similar threads and a pile of tangled > legal activity.
Why should the GPL be hard to understand just because our local cranks claim befuddlement about just how hard or legally problematic it should be to breach its conditions with hopefully no consequences? If your aim is keeping the GPL conditions, that is straightforward to do. If your aim is breaching them, you are in rough waters. Waters that the legal departments of humongous companies don't care to be in, pitted against single developers or small charities. Comply with a small number of clearly spelled out conditions, and you are fine, breach, and you are in trouble. It's not a particularly hard concept unless you are a troll. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
