> > I > > would guess that a tiny minority of libre software users have > > read the GPL from start to finish. > > It's small fry compared with many commercial EULA's. But then no-one reads those either - and look at the trouble that causes! > > We need poets, not lawyers, writing licences. > > That's fine until push comes to shove and the licence gets tested > in court..... A good licence won't have to be tested in court - by the time you've got into the legal system, no-one benefits except the lawyers. If the licence is clear and simple to understand, there's no scope for argument. > You > could also have a 2-part GPL, with one (short) part about copying > the software and a second part which 99% of users don't need to > read, about modifying the software. That's a good idea. Let's see what GPL v3 brings. > > As for contacting copyright holders before commercial use, that > > gives me the option to say no to something like a bit of my music > > being used in a TV advert, for example. I might not approve of > > the association with the product > > There you're way out of the domain of the GPL, which explicitly > forbids any discrimination about how the software is *used*, and is > only about copying. Quite - but then the GPL was written for software, not music. We can draw parallels, but ultimately they are not the same. Cheers Daniel
