Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:33:52AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: <snip> > Being unmodifiable violates the usual "fully general" interpretation of > the DFSG. Unfortunately, that interpetation isn't really fully general > (and, if carried to the limit, would only allow us to distribute public > domain software).
The usual interpretation is "The creation of modifications and derivative works must be allowed in general, though a few specific, narrow restrictions may be placed on what may be created, if they do not seem to harm freedom significantly". Got it? :-) <snip> > Perhaps it's worth noting that, as it was originally written, the DFSG > did not stand on its own but was a part of the social contract. Wait, I thought it predated the Social Contract. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
