> > > > > The GPL folks think it is sufficient. I don't agree, > > but I'm not > > > > > a judge nor am I your lawyer. :-) > > > > > > I do not believe I have the right to make unauthorized copies or > > > derivative works of GPL-licensed software. Just in case > > it's needed, > > > the previous sentence is a manifestation of my assent. > > > > I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements then. Am > > I missing something? > > As someone who knows about the GPL, I cannot claim that I don't know > what I'm doing when I accept a piece of GPL-licensed software. I am > willing to assent to the GPL terms and conditions. It doesn't matter to > me what legal theory the GPL lawyers want to use to enforce their > license.
Then is it your position that a person who doesn't understand the GPL may violate its terms with impunity, arguing that she did not understand the license, or that she followed the license according to her own (flawed) interpretation? This argument may work for mass market consumer contracts with unfair and unusual terms. Are there terms in the GPL that this argument could work against, or are you thinking about something else? Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
