Re: GPL understanding (Was: Re: problems with network instal…

What terrifies me about the GPL is that some segments seem to imply if read
the right way (accoridng to the copy in my old Suse 6.4 manual):

-Modified files must be identified as such and marked with date of
modification-- it sounds like the spirit of this text is "You've gotta keep a change
index file"

-If I distribute the binary commercially, I can't use the "I got the source
from foo, and you can too" escape route. This means I'm sunk with storage
requirements for a package that nobody may want if, for example, I'm just offering
CDs with Windows gimp and openoffice, in case someone demands the source.

I'd also prefer a stricter definition of what will invoke the need to GPL a
resultant work, since "derivative work" is a very subject to interpretation.
Just say "nine lines safe, ten lines not." It probably also differs by region;
probably there are countries where some GPL-forced programme can be safely
non-GPL.

Of course, I think the only real answer is to completely wipe out copyright.