Hi Ben, On Samstag, 3. Mai 2014, Ben Finney wrote: > > care to explain the difference? > We're not interested in what form a *modification* takes (if it even > makes sense to talk about a “form of modification”, which doesn't seem > coherent in the context). We're interested in what form of the *work* is > the source form. > > That is, to answer the question “what is the source form of the work”, > we need a definition that answers in terms of “such-and-so form of the > work”. > > To answer that question, an answer that talks about “form of > modification” doesn't line up; at least, I can't make it coherent > without changing the wording. thanks for the explaination, even though I cannot make much sense out of it ;) I appreciate there seems to be a huge difference for native english speakers, but to me, “preferred form of modification” equals "he preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". And since it's shorter and appearantly many other people don't seem to get the difference, "preferred form of modification” in my book has become a standing expression, which most people seem to get righ. And it's still ambigious: if I prefer to edit assember with a hex editor... > I suspect that definition is what is meant here, but I'd rather we not > need to guess, and I'd rather we not use a divergent definition that > isn't already widely understood if we don't need to. I agree and would suggest to accept that “preferred form of||for modifications” is supposed to mean that too. cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.