On 10/30/2011 04:35 PM, Volker Fröhlich wrote:
The sentence you quoted, tries to briefly explain the GPL, and
to do so accurately. Though they state before, the GPLv2 applies.
I'm curious: Would you regard it free if this sentence were not there?
Probably not. This was just the most obvious reason, the license is
poorly worded. If upstream is interested, I might be able to suggest
changes that would make it free.
This isn't actually an unheard of problem, where the license attempts to
explain the GPL (and fails, causing restrictions and/or non-free state
to become the actual license) as opposed to simply saying "This software
is licensed under the GPLv2."