> > Given that "arbitrary functional modifications" would include illegal > > activities
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:59:14PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > It does. A license that tries to incorporate "you must follow the law" > clauses is non-free. That is a longstanding and clear consesnsus on d-l. That's good as far as it goes. However, that doesn't go very far when dealing with issues of interoperation and creation of derived works. > > I don't think that "arbitrary functional modifications" is a very accurate > > representation of what the DFSG is really trying to allow for. > > I think you're badly wrong here. So, in essence, you think that the DFSG says we must disallow the distribution of gcc if its license prevents you distributing copies which have been functionally modified to better integrate with microsoft's palladium? And, if that is what you think, perhaps you can explain how this point of view has our users and the free software community as its top priorities? -- Raul
