Re: [tlug] Bill Gates and the GPL , let the flames begin

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Attila Kinali writes:

 > The GPLv2 is IMHO because of its simpler wording
 > better fit for international application than GPLv3.
 > Beside, a lot of things in the GPLv3 sound very US centric,
 > while there were only a few in GPLv2.

Interesting point, although some argue that the U.S. has been trying
to bully Europe into making the same mistakes (eg, DMCA and software
patents), and therefore the GPLv3's attempts to counteract U.S. law
are internationally applicable; only the wording needs more care in
international context.  Also, the Europeans I know who actually care
(mostly Emacs developers) seem to accept the FSF's claim that v3 is
better internationalized.

 > Just try to explain to the judge what all those different
 > sections actually mean if you don't understand them yourself.

Actually, in the U.S. system explaining what the sections mean
*legally* is what the courts do for us.  (For the technical stuff, of
course you call "expert witnesses".)

The problem is that if you don't understand what the sections mean,
the judge will very likely explain them in these terms: "You lose!"
Oops.