To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"Yes, Your Honor, but I didn't actually read the license" doesn't hold up in court. The GPLv3 is significantly shorter than many other software licenses, like the EULA for MS Windows Vista, for example. Vendors, developers, and CIOs will read it and/or consult their lawyers. Mom and Pop might not, but who's gunna sue them? The RIAA doesn't have any jurisdiction here.
Also, if you know the basic rules/the philosophy of the GPL, it actually becomes very difficult for the layman to break it unintentionally. As opposed to a standard EULA.
Anyone who simply modifies and republishes code should still just remember that they need to publish the source along with it.
The execution may be a bit more legally explicit, but in the end, most people don't have to do any extra work to comply with the licence, compared to v2. As I understand it, i's even a lot more forgiving to accidental license breakers than v2 was. You get 30 days to comply, from the date you are made aware of it.
v2 just stopped functioning instantly, and you would have to ask the copyright holder for permission again.






Member since:
2007-02-22
Most people haven't actually read it anyways. I think the FSF is banking on that.