Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 11:13 -0700, Wesley J. Landaker escreveu: > On Wednesday 01 February 2006 09:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > "The license must permit modifications". No if, and, or > > buts. So no, I do not think that is actually true. > Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way that it must > permit ALL modifications. The way it reads, literally, could be interpreted > as it must permit ALL modifcations, or as it must permit at least two > modifications (so that "modifications" is plural).
Please, We all know that DFSG wasn't raised without any references... The freedom 1 (which is clearly one direct reference of DFSG) already says "adapt to your needs", and *does not specify which needs are valid*, and also it *does not judges if something already fits to whoever needs*. It's *up to the user* to decide if something fit to his needs or not, and invariant sections *prevents the user* from deciding that. daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
