> again, I'm also not a lawyer, but I understand that the supposed
One nitpick: the GPL is not a license for use, it is a license for
modification and distribution. They assume that no one needs a license
to use software, and you can use GPL software that is legally
acquired, even while refusing or ignoring the terms of the license,
but distributing copies without following the terms of their license
is a copyright violation ("piracy").
I would say that calling GPL a EULA is a severe disservice to what the
GPL represents. It does not constrain or restrict the actions of any
user who does not distribute or modify the software, two things you
cannot even do without a license or agreement giving you that right.
Linux-audio-user mailing list