Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 10:27:25PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > In another reading, the license must allow some modifications and derived
> > > > works to be distributed, and §4 is an additional constraint.
> >
> > On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 07:31:36PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > > I don't think this is a useful interpretation. "The only modification
> > > which may be distributed is changes in indentation" would pass, or even
> > > "the only modification allowed is the null modification".
> >
> > That conflicts with §4.
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 11:11:32PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> If #3 is interpreted as you suggest above, I don't see how it's a meaningful
> clause at all. Except for "under the same terms as the license of the
> original software", #3 becomes a complete subset of #4. Allowing "some
> modifications" is a useless no-op.
It serves to eliminate licenses which permit no distribution of derived
works.
I thought someone had said that we might reject programs which violate
the spirit of the DFSG even if they seem to comply with the letter?
> Of course, the clause headers make the difference between #3 and #4 clear: #3
> talks about Derived Works, and #4 about Integrity of The Author's Source
> Code. I think the "must allow *some* derived works" interpretation doesn't
> work at all with #4, and as the fundamental requirements for derived works
> are laid out in #3, I don't think there's any ambiguity.
>
> (However, I'm sure there's a lot of ambiguity in my paragraphs above.
> Hopefully that made some sense. :)
Actually, I don't understand how #4 doesn't work with #3 where #3 is
taken as meaning that it must be possible to distribute some derived
versions of the copyrighted work.
--
Raul
Reply to: