|
No, it really does mean that. That is how it was intended, and that is how it was written. The fact that it could also be interpretted differently (due to being written by computing students who were non-native English speakers) does not mean that the intended meaning is wrong, much as you'd like everyone to accept your interpretation rather than that of the copyright holders.
As an example, SCO currently claims that the GPL is invalid. On that basis, which do you think would be the more appropriate course of action? (1) ignore the GPL and do whatever you like with code that had previously been protected by it, or (2) continue to follow the GPL until such time as it is proven to be invalid.
|