Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Scripsit Raul Miller <email@example.com>
> > > 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.
> So, in essence, you think that the DFSG says we must disallow the
> distribution of gcc if its license prevents you distributing copies which
> have been functionally modified to better integrate with microsoft's
> And, if that is what you think, perhaps you can explain how this point of
> view has our users and the free software community as its top priorities?
With the DFSG we promise to our users that they can take any software
in main and modify it for any purpose - and distribute such modified
version under the same license as the software they started out
with. "Any purpose" here includes modifications that lets it work with
"microsoft's palladium", whatever this is.
Henning Makholm "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is
useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..."