On Wednesday 01 February 2006 17:51, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > We do not yet have *anyone* who has posted an interpretation > of the DFSG under which the GFDL would pass. Nobody has even tried. > The amendment just declares "it hereby passes"; and nobody, despite > Manoj's request, has proffered one. There have been some vague > references to interpretations being made, but not actually spelled out > and then applied, to see whether they are at all plausible.
Thomas, I don't even know what your asking for here. It only makes sense to give a big long detailed interpretation of the points of the DFSG where it FAILS. Normally when we review a license, we point out all the parts it FAILS. Nobody ever writes a big long explanation--for ANY license--point by point on the DFSG and shows how it passes. That doesn't even make sense for some of the points that say it "must not" do something. A "spelled out and then applied" interperation would just be "it says it must not do this; it doesn't." For example, if someone were doing 'an interpretation', and they got to DFSG 1 and didn't think there was a problem, they'd just write "DFSG 1: good, doesn't have any of these restrictions". They wouldn't write a book about it; it wouldn't make any sense to. Only if someone thought it DIDN'T meet DFSG 1 would they be able to go point by point. Anyway, maybe you could give us an example format showing your point of view and then if someone wants to show and alternate interpretation/point of view, they can do it in a fashion that would be acceptable to you? (I'm serious, not being sarcastic.) -- Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpdzYKl3vHD4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
