Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: > > You are ignoring the *substance* of DFSG and focusing on its literal > > wording. > > You have no argument why the literal meaning differs from the > substance of #3. You can't, because it doesn't. Go read the > rationale for #3.
The *substance* of #3 is to preserve the right to make changes such as suit the *changer*. Under your interpretation, I could have a license which prohibits "any change of the software which would allow it to play Beethoven"! > > but the restriction that it adds for the other group (a > > requirement of public publication) is one that we have *never* > > recognized as DFSG-free. > > I know, and you can't point to anything in the DFSG that prohibits > it. You just *know* it to be true, as an article of faith. So why > point to the DFSG? Why say DFSG-free when what you really mean -- > what the real test is -- is debian-legal-free. Because debian-legal-free is a particular reading of the DFSG. It is, indeed, the authoritative(*) reading of the DFSG, and we are not insensitive to the point behind the DFSG. We are declaring, in fact, what the DFSG means. It's rather like what a court does when interpreting a statute or a constitution. (*): With the proviso that debian-legal is not the last word within Debian; the FTP masters, the Project Leader, and the developers at large have considerable authority too. Debian-legal has authority in that those other groups rely on our advice. Thomas