Put it in laymen's terms

[Ken Arromdee]

On 1 Aug 1999 bruce at perens.com wrote:
> However, you can also take Linus' note as an interpretation of the scope of the
> GPL and not an exception at all.

If you accept that another person can reinterpret phrases like "dervived work",
and you also accept that this reinterpretation can apply to code written by
other people, then the GPL is for all practical purposes nonexistent.  If
someone wants to violate it, they just have to redefine "redistribution",
"derived work", etc. so that their violation is not really a violation.

It doesn't make sense that one person can reinterpret what a phrase in
someone else's license means.