If they were in fact acting in good faith, they should be found to have been
acting in good faith. If you think this reasonably might result in
confusion, the solution is better documentation.
Right.
I mean you can't enforce or implement the license in code because the GPL
specifically permits modification without exclusion. Someone cannot use the
GPL to force you to use code you do not wish to use. The GPL does not
contain any technical enforcement mechanism and would not permit one because
it would be a "further restriction" (it's a restriction, it's not in the
GPL, so it's further).
Perhaps some kind of technical rule that didn't prohibit anything the GPL
allowed might be a legitimate license enforcement scheme, not restricting
anything "further". That's a stretch, but the GPL symbol tagging doesn't
apply since it prohibits non-GPL modules from using those symbols even if
they are not distibuted. This is not a restriction found in the GPL, so it's
a "further restriction". (Which is fine. Not being able to remove any file
as 'root' is a restriction not found in the GPL too. The point is, these are
technical restrictions, not license enforcement mechanisms.)
DS
--
