On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:00:47 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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."
I am sorry, I see these as significantly different
statements. The former is not at all subjective: "Got
work. modifications good". The latter brings in "reasonable". That is
tricky -- whose reason? the authors? the users? This addition ob
subjectivity is a whole new ball game.
Also, since we are talking about the users rights, it would
seem to me that the _user_ gets to decide what is reasonable, not the
author -- iff the DFSG had added the word reasonable, which it does
not.
Again, people are free to add the word reasonable in that
sentence -- but that is a change in the DFSG. I also think in that
case some text should be added about who makes the decision, whether
ever determination of reasonableness falls to a GR, or can the user
decide -- or can the author decide what is reasonable. (That last bit
is hard to swallow -- ["You can modify whatever you want, al long as
what you modify is within the file called junk.txt"].
Anyway, I am afraid I am not convinced by this line of
argument; I do not think it meets the letter or the spririt of the
DFSG as I see it.
manoj
--
To downgrade the human mind is bad theology. Chesterton
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]
