Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
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
activities and "arbitrary legal functional modifications" would not
include activities which are disallowed by the copyright statement,
and that "arbitrary functional modifications which would be legal if it
were not for the copyright" has an additional set of problems (without
the copyright statement no copying is legal, and with any other example
statement this is a requirement for that exact copyright)...
I don't think that "arbitrary functional modifications" is a very accurate
representation of what the DFSG is really trying to allow for.