Em Qui, 2006-02-02 às 12:44 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:32:50PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > > I must remeber that, in this case, you're not letting the user judge if > > something fits or not to his needs. > > This breaks freedom 1[1], which DFSG3 clearly refers to. > Notice that freedom 1 doesn't talk about distribution. However if you > interpret "need" as "need" and not as "whatever the user decides are > his needs" then this modification would be useful and required by > freedom 3.
Sorry, it's "adapt to your needs", not "adapt to the needs the author judges reasonable"... You're forcing your interpretation beyond reasonable limits... > > As I said more than three times in this thread, I can show you one > > document[1] that DFSG clearly refers to which contradicts your > > interpretation. Can you show me something like this that contradicts my > > argument? > I hope in this message I answered you. No, you didn't. You're still using your own words to subvert the common-sense interpretation of freedom. Please, point me to the references that support your arguments. daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
