On Wednesday 01 February 2006 11:36, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > "Wesley J. Landaker" <wjl@icecavern.net> 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. The point isn't what *I* believe about it. I've haven't yet said what I believe about that. The point is that > > I think it's completely appropriate for the developer body to determine > > how to apply those guidelines using their own common sense and gut > > feel, without resorting to grammatical nitpicking. So a vote on this > But this must be done in a *principled* way. Yes, I agree. Hence, "common sense" and "gut feel". But it's a fact that all developers "common sense" about the GFDL isn't leading to the same decisions. If you're going to argue that having this GR needs a 3:1 decision on one option because it overrules the "common sense" of Debian, then *all* the options should need a 3:1 majority, since they are all, in effect, overruling the "guidelines" part of the DFSG with respect to the GFDL and unilaterally declaring it either free, free-in-some-cases, or non-free entirely. My argument is that each of these options is a possible valid interpretation of the DFSG. But, please stop interpreting this to mean that I support one option or the other, as I have not yet said what of those options I support. (I will state it by my vote after I've considered it more carefully.) -- Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> <xmpp:wjl@icecavern.net> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
Attachment:
pgppA7__uK_Vj.pgp
Description: PGP signature