ambiguity

> As a matter of fact, I would go further, I don’t see where the GPLv2 requires the ability to reinstall at all. It requires the provision of the scripts that were used for installation, it does not require that the end user be able to actually use those scripts to install the software. It doesn’t impose any conditions on installation at all

Totally agree with that take. I had to do a bit of a deep dive into licensing at my previous job, and our conclusion as devs was that the language was so obtuse that we resorted to rely on the legal department answer (which I unfortunately could not get before getting fired during a company restructuration). My own take was that you are require to deliver all the Makefiles/script/whatever that can a user to end up with a binary on their *build* machine, as well as any script that is used to put that binary onto the device. But nowhere it is clear (and please correct me if you have references!) that you need to allow the user to install said binary onto the device.

I feel this is a case of while it was the intention, it's not actually properly transcribed in the text of the GPLv2.