Can we all agree now that the law, justice, and licences are three different entities. And it would take the opinion of someone well versed in all three to quiet this ruckus. And furthermore even if we have a "solid" answer from a respected source, either justice or law could still supersede such an opinion if ever put to an legal actual contestation no matter how well worded a licence's permissiveness is worded or then misconstrued. Especially since the licence is contrary to the nature of normal copyright laws which in fact vary from nation state to nation state.
Shane On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling < joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote: > On 04/03/2013 01:08 PM, Wols Lists wrote: > > Dare I suggest you look at section zero? The second paragraph of which > > says, and I quote: > > You're talking about GPL version 2, not GPL version 3. > > Compare: > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html > > ... where the second paragraph of Section 0 is exactly as you describe, > with: > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > > ... which is the current and (to this case) relevant version of the GPL. > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
