Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Essence of writing a good opinion is that we need to convey the
same message we have in mind.
The proof of this conclusion is that I did not understand what you had
in mind when you wrote the rest of this message. :-)
You simply cannot predefine how you are going to do that.
When a clause is plainly violating the DFSG, we can get away
with `that is not DFSG free'; and a reference to specific
provisions of the DFSG might not be necessary.
I didn't write that a reference to the specific provision is always
necessary. I wrote that it is *always* /nice/ and /proper/.
But to say that this clause from the GFDL
"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute."
is not free equires elaboration and references to specific
provisions of DFSG. (better examples might be available).
Again, even in your example, I have to fetch the DFSG, read its
entirety (ok, ok, I know, it's not a 50-page document, and even if it
was, give me a year or two and I'll know it by heart) to comprehend
why is it not free. Got it?
best regards,
Massa
