Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 07:44:58PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:13:05AM -0700, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: >> > 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). >> >> Are you seriously suggesting that a webserver which allows one to only >> modify the name it advertizes and the path to the default configuration >> file is Free? > > Nobody is suggesting that. The point is that DFSG allow many > interpretations and the Debian developers have to decide which one is > the correct one.
But you have not explained how your amendment is an interpretation rather than a modification of the DFSG. You cannot simply write something new, and say "and this is an interpretation of the DFSG!" It must actually *be* an interpretation, whether correct or not. Nothing in the DFSG suggests treating documentation and programs differently, and it was recently changed (by 3:1 vote!) to explicitly treat them the same. Which means that any interpretation must account for this fact: that whatever the rules are, they are the same for documentation and programs. Now, what is the interpretation you suggest? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
