>>I don’t find it very useful or enlightening when people start Equally, I dont find it very useful or enlightening when people point out the obvious while ig

>>I don’t find it very useful or enlightening when people start Equally, I dont find it very useful or enlightening when people point out the obvious while ignoring intent completely. While I agree with some of your premise, nothing is ever perfect, and the interpretation of legal agreements is why many lawyers make lots of money, and why we have 10's of thousands of people employed in the legal profession So simply saying "will if you wanted X you should have written it down" is a simplistic take on a complex problem. If we could do that we would not have law suits debating the details of contract, nor would we have countless unintended consequences from various laws passed by the various legislative bodies >Taking a quick scan of GPLv2, this doesn’t even seem to grossly offend the principles or intent of the license - It does in fact offend the principles which si why GPLv3 was created, and AGPL and other versions of the license to counter some of the "holes" companies like RedHat exploit in GPLv2. Linux however has always and likely always will resist moving to GPLv3