On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 01:33:30AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Read in English, naturally by a native speaker, the license clearly > > applies restrictions against "chmod", etc, and the above > > interpretation does not come from the license. > > I agree on both counts. Yet rather than taking the GR to mean that > restrictions against chmod are OK in general, I think the GR says that > the GFDL should not be taken to imply restrictions against chmod. If > that leads to using an interpretaion that does not come from the > license, then so be it - it's a lesser evil than deciding that free > software does not need to be chmodable.
I don't think "pretend the license doesn't place the restrictions it does, tell people that it's free based on that, and encourage interpreting licenses to suit one's convenience" is a lesser evil, just a different one. Both mean that I'd never refer someone to Debian for licensing help--in the former case, they'd be told that it's OK to prohibit chmod, and in the latter, they're encouraged to bad, potentially dangerous practices. (Not to say that I have any better idea of how to proceed from this GR. It just doesn't seem to leave any acceptable options--but that fact doesn't improve the bad options any.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
