Sort of off topic but the authors response is a bit insane.

>"The origin of the confusion is that in one source file in cphack (note that cphack is just one of the four main items in the cp4break package), there's a comment saying "Released under the GPL". There is also a similar statement in the onscreen "About" box."

But previously: "The suggestion that it might have been GPL surprised Eddy and I just as much as it did anyone else"

Really? They think that the suggestion that a piece of software which says "Released under the GPL" in the source code and similar things in the about box is in fact released under the GPL is surprising?

Then it goes on: "I think that doesn't mean much because saying "the GPL" doesn't really identify "the GNU General Public License version 2" as specifically as a copyright notice should."

A very strange argument. Are they really claiming that the author purposely wrote that it was released under "the GPL", but was referring to a different GPL (and never mentioned it)? Or is he trying to say that by keeping the language ambiguous, he can retroactively change the intention?

I'm not sure whether to interpret all this as ineptitude, stubbornness or deception.

Look, it is quite clear that they did not release it under the GPL, I'm not contesting that. But what they're claiming is quite ridiculous, and I feel like there must be more going than what they're writing.