3 ms·
Have you read the GPL? It uses fairly simple language, no legal jargon, and it's a lot shorter than some EULAs I've seen. I imagine a lot of people just mentall
by thristian 13y ago
Have you read the GPL? It uses fairly simple language, no legal jargon, and it's a lot shorter than some EULAs I've seen. I imagine a lot of people just mentally file it under 'legalese' and skip over it, but even a "simplified" GPL wouldn't prevent that.
- forrestthewoods 13y agoThere are and continue to be wild disagreements over GPL and what it means. Is linking against a DLL considered a derived work? It depends on who you ask! Stallman thinks yes. Others think no.
- thristian 13y agoIsn't that a vagueness in copyright law itself? You could avoid the vagueness by making the GPL stricter and more explicit, but that seems like the direct opposite of 'simplification'.
- Nursie 13y agoIt tends to be considered so by the people that write the GPL'd software. That's why the LGPL exists. If you're looking for a way to use someone's software components against their wishes, and just looking for a legal way of doing so, then you may be right. If you actually want to respect the wishes of the author OTOH...
- dllthomas 13y agoMaking it more something regular people can read and understand would mean more arguments by lawyers (real and wannabe) over how far bits of it can be stretched.
- thejteam 13y agoI agree that it is better than many EULAs, but that doesn't make it simple. At roughly 5000 words with a reading ease grade level of about 15(Flesch-Kincaid) it is not a document for the average person. Doesn't even mean I disagree with most of the license, but it is unreasonable to expect people to understand it.