On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:37:12AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > > Here are three possible interpretations of "The license must allow > > modifications": > > > FIRST > > The license must allow us to modify the work as we see fit with > > possible exception for the license and [list here restrictions we > > already accept as free]. > > Actually, the license attached to a work (of which the license > is not a part) must allow the work to be modified as the user sees > fit.
I understand that this is how you interpret DFSG. (BTW, the list in the brackets is not empty.) > > SECOND > > The license must give us enough permissions to modify the work in > > order to adapt it to various needs or to improve it. > > You must change the DFSG to allow such leeway. There is > nothing in the DFSG that permits such leeway; if anything, the DFSG > must be modified to "clarify" it in an editorial change. This seams so to you because you use the first interpretation. The same way I could say that the first interpretation is a leeway because DFSG don't say "as the user sees fit". > > THIRD > > The license must allow as to make some modifications of the work. > > This contradicts what the DFSG says. This contradicts the common notion of "free software", but otherwise it is completely valid textual interpretation of DFSG. > If you want to interpret things quite so differently, it is of > course your right to do so, you just must change the DFSG to cater to > this interpretation. Just the opposite -- I wish we had more unambiguous DFSG. The problem is that the current DFSG allow these different interpretations. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
