Exactly, a clear and simple license should be clear and simple, not legalese with "interpretation". If they don't intend that clause to be there it shouldn't be there.
For reference, the GPLv2 (sadly not so much v3) has held up very well now under multiple tests both in and out of court for two decades. And it's very short, and written in clear English. It even describes its intent in the body of the license.
Neither. The GPLv3 was motivated by practical concerns (tivoization, etc...) and it solves those to the satisfaction of the FSF. GNU software uses it, though Linux and much of the rest of the ecosystem does not. I don't think it's failed.
But it doesn't read like GPLv2 did. The v3 document is longer, with more definitions and more "legalese". It seems like they wanted to "polish it up" for the legal community, but in doing so I think they lost a lot of the beauty of the original.
Comments
Exactly, a clear and simple license should be clear and simple, not legalese with "interpretation". If they don't intend that clause to be there it shouldn't be there.
For reference, the GPLv2 (sadly not so much v3) has held up very well now under multiple tests both in and out of court for two decades. And it's very short, and written in clear English. It even describes its intent in the body of the license.
Is this just because the GPLv3 hasn't been around for two decades, or has it actually failed?
Neither. The GPLv3 was motivated by practical concerns (tivoization, etc...) and it solves those to the satisfaction of the FSF. GNU software uses it, though Linux and much of the rest of the ecosystem does not. I don't think it's failed.
But it doesn't read like GPLv2 did. The v3 document is longer, with more definitions and more "legalese". It seems like they wanted to "polish it up" for the legal community, but in doing so I think they lost a lot of the beauty of the original.