On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:42, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > If you are saying that "The license must permit modifications" has one, > > and only one interpretation, and that that interpretation is "The > > license must permit any and all modifications", then you are really > > doing the hair splitting, because that's not what it said. It's a > > perfectly valid interpreation, but it's not the one-and-only possible > > one that meets the spirit of the Debian project. > > Actually, I think it does have one and only one interpretation. > > The way to prove me wrong is to seriously say, "I think there is a > different interpretation which is plausible, and this is it: XXX." > And then, make that stick.
In the same e-mail you quoted, I stated a possible alternate interpretation: On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:23, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > My argument is that it's an absolutely and completely valid > interpretation--in the full spirit of the DFSG and the Debian project--of > "The license must permit modifications" to say that it means instead, "The > license must permit reasonable modification." (Well, sorry for the weird grammar in that sentence. ;) -- Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
pgpieYt8urAq2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
