Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I do believe that "The license must allof for modifications"
> does mean that any modification of the work must be
> permissible -- not just modifying whatever the author gives you
> permission to modify.
> (Extreme exampls: You can not modify this work, apart from the
> last period. You can modify that to whatever you want -- does not
> meet the DFSG, even though it allows you to modify the last byte of
> the work.)
The place where this makes me somewhat uncomfortable is 2c of the GPL
(starting from the standpoint that the DFSG makes the GPL DFSG-free by
definition and therefore interpretations that make it non-free are
problematic):
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
I realize that this doesn't specify the *way* in which that notice is
printed, which is indeed important, and I think this is substantially less
restrictive than the GFDL in several ways. However, the comparison to
your extreme example isn't as clear to me; it is a real constraint on the
way in which the work can be modified.
I can see how the hair can be split, but it does feel like splitting hairs
a bit.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
