Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Scripsit Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:16:35PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > These are three non-solutions with respect to the freedom to make
> > arbitrary functional modifications to the work - which lies that the
> > very core of the DFSG.
> Given that "arbitrary functional modifications" would include illegal
It does. A license that tries to incorporate "you must follow the law"
clauses is non-free. That is a longstanding and clear consesnsus on d-l.
> I don't think that "arbitrary functional modifications" is a very accurate
> representation of what the DFSG is really trying to allow for.
I think you're badly wrong here.
Henning Makholm "Nett hier.
Aber waren Sie schon mal in Baden-Württemberg?"