🚀 go-pugleaf

   Date: 30 Apr 90 04:29:24 GMT
   From: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu

   Wunderbar. Why is the FSF so opposed to using clear, easy-to-understand,
   legally sound licenses? When corporate lawyers review the GPL and say it
   has problems, why doesn't the FSF get the message and rewrite the GPL to
   avoid those problems? What does the FSF gain by failing to do this?

What makes you say that they are opposed to clear or sound licenses?
It is very hard to write one.  I have written one; I know it's hard.
If you have better lanuagge which achieves the same effect, plase send
it to the FSF.  Their plan is not to be obscurantists (then again,
they're not lawyers, and their role is not just to write contracts,
but code).

Also, don't forget that corporate lawyers, and most lawyers in
general, are trained to look for tricky boundary cases.  Any lawyer
can find a problem with ANY contract.  After all, the practice of law
is the practice of ontology, not of theorem proving!  For any
corporate lawyer you find who has problems with the GPL I can find one
who represents a company which is happy with it.  But what would this
prove?