> This is pretty clear that no copy is special. In any event, this is a grant > of license, not a guarantee of ability. (Read the context.) Yes, it's a grant of license. And then, section 6 tells a licensee that, when he distributes the software to someone else, she receives ...
Almost two years ago, the FSF started work on the first update of the GNU GPL in over a decade. A last-minute hitch, though, iskeeping the license from appearing. According to Peter Brown, the FSF’s executive director,“We continue to work on the details of the GPLv3 as it relates ...
But there is an explicit no warranty clause in the GPLv2. Which I believe is a good thing. If the license tried to enforce usability, i.e. "continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with", then any time a new release of the program causes...
makes that determination there is no kaboom here. > As for the right to run the program, I've also explained why in > Brazilian copyright law this is a right granted by the license, > because the license says that right is unrestricted. > > Kaboom! No, the license says that it does...
You are confusing a grant of license with an assurance of ability. Section 2 is a grant of permission. If we were to read "may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it" the way you suggest, that would mean that you must be able to modify ...