On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 07:06:51PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > There are many jurisdictions without the US's concept of "fair use". Freedoms > depending on fair use are not sufficient for Debian--a license with non-free > restrictions is not typically considered free because those restrictions are > believed to be unenforcable in certain jurisdictions. > > (It might be claimed that this lack of fair use is a peculiarity of local > law, which Debian doesn't usually concern itself with, but I'm under the > general impression that "fair use" itself is the peculiarity, not the lack > of it, or at least that the implementation of fair use in different places > differs too widely to base anything off of the US's particular version.)
I'm not talking about the US concept of "fair use" here. I'm talking about the definition of of a "Modified Version", given by GFDL. Obviously the wording of the definition is unfortunate, and needs work, but the real question is, would any sane person or court really consider a work that cites another work to be a modified version of the original work? To me, it is clearly a separate work, which is why I don't think Wouter's example is valid. --Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
