🚀 go-pugleaf

Greg Lindahl wrote:
> > If transfer of ownership is required for GPL, then GPL is dead.
> 
> The GPL doesn't use mealy-mouthed language trying to circumvent "fair
> use". There is no problem with this.

You miss the point.  If GPL only applies given a transfer of ownership, then
modified software doesn't need to be distributed under GPL at all, because it
can be distributed *under a different license* without transfer of ownership. 
If you think right-to-use shrink-wrap licenses are an invalid attempt to
circumvent fair use, fine.  Just assume that the right-to-use license is a
written, signed (or digitally executed) license, not a shrink-wrap.  I don't
think anyone would argue that real written right-to-use licenses are invalid. 
They're no different from an agreement giving you the right-to-use a car.