Hi,
Am Fre, 2003-06-13 um 02.10 schrieb Andrew Suffield:
> As such, I
> think it'd be best to remove the second one outright; the freedom is
> already adequetely described by the first. *Any* form which allows you
> to modify the work for any purpose, is good enough.
Not sure: Technically, for example, you can modify a program in any
possible way just by having access to the assembler code that the
compiler generates out of the closed sources, but this would be far too
difficult to be realistic. That is why specifically the "preferred form"
has to be available. But a clearer definition would be great, of course.
Joachim
--
Joachim Breitner
e-Mail: mail@joachim-breitner.de | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de
JID: joachimbreitner@amessage.de | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189
Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?>+ V?
PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+>* h! z?
Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge.
Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil