On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:28:18AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Anton Zinoviev wrote: > > Derived Works > > > > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow > > them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the > > original software. > > > > Notice that DFSG do not say "arbitrary modifications". > > The general interpretation we've taken of this is "must allow > modifications in general, with restrictions allowable if they do not > prevent reasonable use cases".
What is the meaning of "modifications in general"? I am just asking. > "Invariant sections" prevent several reasonable use cases, which is why > they're generally considered non-free. The only example in this and the previous thread about such case is the requirement to include the invariant sections and the text of GFDL in man-pages generated from info-manuals. I explained why this is not necessary. > > If we want to decide whether some particular restrictions in the > > license make the license non-free or not, we have to use external to > > DFSG arguments. For example everybody is free to decide that the > > invariant sections make the document non-free but this can not be a > > consequence from DFSG. > > Well, it's true that it can't be a pure, logical consequence. There > is *interpretation* (of the DFSG, of the Social Contract, of the > license) involved. It is not a matter totally separate from the > DFSG either, however. Then this interpretation should be written and voted. > > My personal addition to DFSG is this: the license must allow us to > > improve the program and/or the documentation. > > Ah. You've omitted an absolutely vital freedom, which the FSF seems to have > forgotten about when writing the GFDL: the freedom to adapt the work for > another purpose. I do not opose the freedom to adapt the work for another purpose. In my opinion this freedom follows from the freedom to improve. > Many of us care very strongly about this freedom. This freedom is > one of the primary reasons why free software has been successful. > Licenses which deny or severely restrict this freedom must IMNSHO be > considered non-free. I agree. > The major limits it places on this freedom are the fundamental > practical reason why the GFDL is a bad license. Can you give me some hints about that? Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
