On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:59:51PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > Em Sex, 2006-02-03 às 11:43 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu: > > If GPL didn't contain the clause we are discussing then you > > would say that a license with such clause is non-free. > > I still don't know why you think this GPL clause has something to do > with invariant sections...
But I am not comparing this GPL clause with the invariant sections! Manoj requires 3:1 supermajority for my proposal with the argument that my reading of DFSG is unconventional. This argument means that there is some conventional reading of DFSG. So far the only presumably "conventional" reading of DFSG was that "the license must allow arbitrary modifications". This reading would make GPL non-free so it can not be "conventional". Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
