Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:26:16PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > This is a case in which DFSG#3 very explicitly does not require derived
> > works to be distributable.
>
> Agreed, though the convolutions you went through don't really have any
> bearing on this point.
Of course it does. You claimed, as far as I can tell, that the GPL's
requirement that derived works be available under the GPL's terms is
a restriction on modification; I explained that this is explicitly
allowed by the latter part of DFSG#3.
If that is not what you meant, then please explain more clearly what you
did mean.
(If the explanation of what you did mean results in a similar response
to another subthread, such as to Steve's reply, feel free to bump the
reply over there.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: