On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 17:54:56 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wednesday 01 February 2006 14:32, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:36:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> > "Wesley J. Landaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > > Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way
>> > > that it must permit ALL modifications. The way it reads,
>> > > literally, could be interpreted as it must permit ALL
>> > > modifcations, or as it must permit at least two modifications
>> > > (so that "modifications" is plural).
>> >
>> > So, would you regard a license which permitted the modification
>> > of some features of a program, but not others, to be free? I
>> > would not.
>> >
>> > This is why your interpretation sounds entirely ad-hoc. If you
>> > *really* think that the correct reading of this part of the DFSG
>> > is to say that as long as two modifications are permitted, it
>> > does not matter what restrictions are on the rest of a program,
>> > then I think you are proffering something so implausible it need
>> > not be considered.
>>
>> Wesley wrote "The way it reads, literally, could be interpretted".
>> This doesn't mean he thinks this is the correct reading of DFSG.
> Precisely; the point of my whole e-mail was that you can never solve
> issues about how to interpret the DFSG by legalistic semantic
> nitpicking on how the sentences are written.
I beg to duiffer. The license must allow modifications is
not really all that unclear, a grey area subject to differing
interpretations.
While there are grey areas in applying the guidelines, I do
not see this as one of them.
manoj
--
Wow! Look!! A stray meatball!! Let's interview it!
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
