Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:24:16PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >> I beg to differ. There is a reason the foundation docuyments >> have a 3:1 modification requirement: If a simple majority were >> enough to "interpret" codicils on a novel and unconvetional fashion, >> then there is no point of the constitutional requirement for super >> majority. > > The interpretation I proposed is not a novel and unconventional. It > is not novel because it represents notion for "free software" that is > older that Debian. It is not unconventional because it is widespread > among the free software community. I'd say that your interpretation > is more unconventional than mine.
So which is "your interpretation", exactly? - That we have to read DFSG3 as "must allow reasonable modifications"? Then please explain how a license that forbids to remove off-topic sections is free according to that interpretation, in other words why removing such sections is not "reasonable". - That we have to read DFSG3 as "must allow at least 2 modifications"? Then please explain why the number is not three, and whether any two allowed modifications would satisfy the clause. - Whatever Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
