AndreE, your reading comprehension is your problem, not mine

AndreE, your reading comprehension is your problem, not mine

I understood the "fake" quote to be paraphrasing what you wrote, which was the following:

I still don't see that there's certainty that judges will interpret the GPL the way Brad Kuhn, Linus Torvalds and other people with all their agendas and their interest in playing favorites with some companies would like them to.

That is, the usual finger-wagging "wait till a judge takes a look at it" style of response. Note that I'm not directly quoting you here but merely characterising a sentiment that is frequently expressed.

As always, I find it helpful to think of the GPL as a big "view source" button: if a program is licensed under the GPL, you should be able to invoke that option even if it isn't actually achieved by pressing an actual on-screen button. How deep the viewable source goes depends on limitations of what people (yes, judges and legislators included) regard as reasonable, but you can't blame the people who write these licences from telling people what they had in mind.

People keep telling us that a common understanding of the intent of a licence does matter when a judge has to decide on a case. You're suggesting that some of the people who contribute to this common understanding are actually holding back in favour of various corporate interests, are you not?