On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 12:10:01AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-09-30 04:27:05 +0100 Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:24:47PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > >>>It's not always clear what the preferred form of modification would > >>>be > >>>for a piece of media. [...] > >>So specify it. > >That's a very bad idea; it'd merely be *his* preferred form, and the > >GPL > >doesn't say "the original author's preferred form of the work for > >making > >modifications to it". > > Why is it a bad idea for the copyright holders to say "I consider .... > the preferred form for modifying this program" in doubt? They are the > ones who will be trying to enforce the licence. Far from being > irrelevant, it's a useful hint for licensees that could help clear > things up. Of course, if the work has ben transformed the work in some > fundamental way, the original copyright holders' opinion will be less > relevant. > > The rest of your message dealt with the case "the preferred form for > modifying this program is the C code", which I think is stronger, > different and not what I meant.
If so, then I have no idea what you meant; please be more specific (ie. give an example). This is an example of a misguided specification of "preferred form for modifying this program" that is likely to result from your suggestion. -- Glenn Maynard
