Raul Miller writes: > Given that "arbitrary functional modifications" would include illegal > activities and "arbitrary legal functional modifications" would not > include activities which are disallowed by the copyright statement, > and that "arbitrary functional modifications which would be legal if it > were not for the copyright" has an additional set of problems (without > the copyright statement no copying is legal, and with any other example > statement this is a requirement for that exact copyright)... > > I don't think that "arbitrary functional modifications" is a very accurate > representation of what the DFSG is really trying to allow for.
Except for preserving copyright/warranty notices, the license should not restrict how users modify the software. If a user modifies the software in an "illegal" way (whatever that might mean -- presumably in some way such that subsequent use of the software would violate local law) then it is that particular user's responsibility. Some of the cryptographic software in Debian is illegal to use in certain countries already, modified or not. The DFSG does not address that, and it is not reasonable for the DFSG to try to address that. The DFSG must establish some base level of freedom; putting limits on those freedoms because it might eventually lead to some user somewhere violating the law would be a police state action. Michael
