
Am 22.01.2017 um 17:18 schrieb Brandon Allbery:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Ben Franksen
wrote: This would be a problem only if they anticipate a need to distibute modified versions of cpphs or other sorts of work derived from it.
Corporate lawyers are not interested in *your* interpretation of GPL, only their own.
It is not "my" intepretation, rather it is the "official" interpretation of the GPL according to the people who created it (the FSF).
And most of them won't touch GPL3 or even LGPL3 with a ten foot pole. Shouting your interpretation of it at them won't change anything.
Do you have any evidence to support this statement? I ask because if what you say is true, most companies willfully and severely restrict their options. For instance, a company that employs lawyers who "won't touch GPL3 or even LGPL3 with a ten foot pole" could not use Linux in any way (the kernel is GPL licensed), nor e.g. Android (based on Linux kernel). I have no data on how many companies in the world use Linux. What I do know is that many companies, even big corporations, actually support the Linux kernel with code (e.g. drivers), thus triggering the most restricting clauses in the GPL. For instance, Volkswagen AG has contributed socketcan to the kernel. Cheers Ben -- "Make it so they have to reboot after every typo." ― Scott Adams