OSNews

So, basically, I am not allowed to critisise the GPL?

Of course you are. However, as an editor, you have a responsibility to remain "above the fray" and not give the impression of partiality. If you become partial, then you shouldn't complain if people argue with you.

It seems to me you would like us to take whatever you say for the truth and refrain from criticising you when we feel you're wrong...

Where did I say the license is useless? Don't go making stuff up now.

I'm sorry, but you basically said that the license is unsuited for the kernel or programs of that complexity. That's another way of saying it's useless for that purpose, or for any similarly complex program. These are your words, not mine:

"If one of the most important terms in the GPL is not clearly definable, doesn't that mean the license is simply not suited for something as complex as an operating system kernel? Or, that the license itself is too complex and unclear?"

Just because there are more grey areas in the world of computing (ones that are unrelated to the topic at hand), I should not be allowed to point out the ones in the GPL?

Sure you're allowed, however when you present it in a way that implies that the GPL should not be used because of these grey areas, then you are in fact taking position against use of the GPL. As such, you should expect a fair amount of criticism from those who have benefited from the GPL or have used it for their own projects.

I'm sorry, but for me, the GPL is just a stupid license, like all others, and it's not the damn bible. If it contains weaknesses, I will point them out, editor or not, end of story.

To claim that they are weaknesses you'd have to give us a compelte legal framework. You're not a lawyer, Thom, and such criticism would be better done by someone who understands the license better.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, though. Are you claiming that all licenses are stupid? And what is that quote about the Bible? Do you hold the Bible as a legally sound document?

The GPL is a fine license, despite the grey area that you pointed out. This is corroborated by the fact that no one has challenged it and won in a court of law. Is it perfect? No, however nothing is, and therefore that fact alone is not sufficient to single it out in condemning it.

Now, you may not like the GPL on philosophical grounds, and that's quite acceptable, but on legal grounds the GPL is quite strong (as far as licenses go).