Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:51:11 +0000 Henning Makholm wrote:
>> According to my statement, *if* we do get the special tool and all of
>> the intermediate forms, then the work is free. My statement does not
>> tell anything about the freedom if we don't - then we're in the grey
>> area where we have to apply common sense or other rules of thumb.
> I agree with you that it would be far better if we could get the special
> tool (and even better if the special tool were DFSG-free!), but would it
> be *required* for the generated work to be DFSG-free?
I'm wouldn't be comfortable with a genral rule that says that the
answer *must* be either yes or no whenever an example matches the
general hypothetical situation we are discussing here.
> We have to judge: in most cases my bet is that providing the special
> tool is optional (an interesting and useful optional, but still not
> mandatory).
In many concrete cases I would probably agree with you.
> The "preferred form for modification" definition seems to work well in
> all cases I can think of: obviously, there are cases in which we must be
> careful when applying it, but it works anyway.
I agree with this. What I'm objecting to is the idea that it is
automatically and unconditionally the _author's_ preferrences that
apply.
--
Henning Makholm "And why should I talk slaves' and fools' talk? I
don't want him to live for ever, and I know that he's
not going to live for ever whether I want him to or not."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
