On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 01:15:29PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Likewise, the intent of the DFSG is clearly to allow the combined
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> distribution of independent works on the same media or from the same
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (virtual) location, while preserving the right of those works to be
> licensed as their author(s) choose.
This is not clear from the DFSG as i was suggesting - I KNOW that
it is meant like this - But its not that clear, and
a lot people i am talking to seem to agree.
> Reading the "contamination not allowed" clause and the GPL in the way
> that you you keeping insisting in doing, after it has been explained
I just say - It CAN be read that way as its not clear from the
terminology - There is an example talking about work on the same media
but it doesnt state the relation of these work(s) (Same media is
a relation but the relation might be stronger, like linking). And
"restriction" is a terminology which can be interpreted in many ways as
"distributed along".
> several times, is what is idiotic. The issue can't be clear if you won't
> listen.
I am listing by the way :) I know it sounds idiotic the GPL and DFSG beeing
incompatible - And its the last thing i want to happen - But i
just wanted to discuss the ability to "misinterpret" the DFSG Par. 9
and possibly working creativly on a change for the terminology
making it more clear what the intention thereof is. I think i know what
the intention is - And I am sure i have understood whats written
there, but someone COULD havily misinterpret this as i have shown.
And i think - "Intention as i have understood" and "Intention
written down" can be very different as i think i have shown.
But if noone else is willing or able to see that i just shut up.
Flo
--
Florian Lohoff flo@rfc822.org +49-subject-2-change
"Technology is a constant battle between manufacturers producing bigger and
more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots."