Put it in laymen's terms

[bruce at perens.com]

From: Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net>
> It doesn't make sense that one person can reinterpret what a phrase in
> someone else's license means.

You're forgetting that Linus is copyright holder for a significant portion
of the code. His note can be taken as a declaration that he will not
prosecute for a specific kind of use. He has the right to make up that
list for software that he owns, and other kernel developers will follow
his lead. He can interpret all he wants, and the other developers will
follow his lead in that, too.

I agree that the GPL could be much more specific on the issue of
derived works. One of the reasons it is not is that the dodges we're
discussing here did not exist when the GPL was written, but they are
still potentially violations if you can demonstrate that they were
employed simply as a method of circumventing the license terms. That
leaves us in the position of attempting to interpret the GPL's intent
rather than the letter of the document.

	Thanks

	Bruce