Re: GPL but some author's demand ...
David B Harris <eelf@sympatico.ca> writes:
> It depends on the interpretation of "should". Hopefully a lawyer-type
> will respond to the post, because as far as I interpret, "should" means
> optional. Strongly encouraged, but not required. I bet the author wants
> to use the words "can not be" or "may not be" instead of "should", given
> their difficulty with English.
Alas, courts are likely to be restrictive about copyright, and would
be inclined to say that this is really a "must not be".
The easiest thing to do is to get a clarification from the author.
Reply to: