Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There is no DFSG #0 that requires the right to *run* the program, > because the prevailing legal opinion is that copyright cannot restrict > use in the first place. If the license demands that one accepts a > restriction on use as a condition on getting the other rights the DFSG > requires, is an attached string. As such, it renders all of the other > rights void for the purposes of applying the DFSG to it.
I realize now that I misunderstood your argument in my last message. Your claim is that since the use restriction attaches to all the other freedoms the license grants, it is also a restriction on all those freedoms....? In which case DFSG #6 is completely redundant. Hrm. I'm still uncomfortable -- if it were intended that the DFSG be interpreted that way, why is #6 there at all? -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
