You can't understand GPL issues unless you fully understand that the only power the author has is to stop people from copying his code, and then only according to some specific legislation giving him that power
Yes. Quick last bit of diagnostics first? It seems to me I was just carrying a little more context. We're discussing a specific case, a company's act of distribution, and the terms under which their license permits that act, in a situation where permission is required by law and either the license permits it or nothing within notice does.
In the general case, without that context, I can see it could be interpreted in misleading ways. And overreaching with licenses is an especially sensitive issue now. A quick google for "license violation" tells me it's going to be difficult to uproot the usage. Not good; creating and taking advantage of confusion like that is the business of rented mouths and their thralls.
Even you may have fallen into the trap of confusing conditional permission with a prohibition when you were surprised that GPL doesn't require a distributor to make good on his promiseMmm. I certainly missed the consequence, but not from that particular confusion. Looking at it again this, erm, now yesterday, morning prompted me to check V3. That indefinite article gets just as much help there. I guess I'm not the first to think that's going to wind up troublesome. Seems to me there are some very wrong ways to proceed here.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds