> > So, backing up a bit: can you suggest a license clause which would be > > allowed under the "some modifications" interpretation of DFSG#3 and > > disallowed under "all modifications", while still passing DFSG#4, and > > not falling under "rules lawyering" like the above? That is, an example > > showing that the different interpretation is meaningful. (I think the > > lack of one is why this is somewhat difficult to discuss.)
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 01:57:14AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > Sure -- imagine that there exists a clause in the terms of some copyright > which prohibited the distribution of some class of modification to some > part of the work which very clearly wasn't the source code to a program. For example: where the GPL specifies that the GPL cannot be modified. -- Raul
