> The GPL ... has nothing to say about usage. The GPLv2 text: " The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered on

> The GPL ... has nothing to say about usage. The GPLv2 text: " The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). " Of course this sentence contradicts the previous sentence in the text, which claims that normal usage "is not covered by this License". I presume you'd argue to support your claim, but seriously, this is bad drafting. > No it's not. There are no pre-agreed terms, penalties for violation, expected compensation for services provided or anything like that. "penalties for violation", "expected compensation" are not necessary requirements for formation of a contract. The pre-agreed terms are clearly stated in the license text, or at least as clear as far as they don't contradict each other. By the way, "pre-agreed terms" are not necessary for the formation of a contract either. > Because, surprise surprise, he has advice from people who ARE trained in the law. Are you trained in the law? Because if you think the Internet should pay regards to somebody trained in the law (even though they may not have learned the law properly) as opposed to somebody who hasn't, then I don't see why you think you have a standing to speak as though you're an authoritative source on the matter.