Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
> > I wasn't talking about "fault".
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:54:48AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> What on earth are you talking about then?
> Your agenda seems to be trying to demonstrate that the GPL is "not
> free enough" because it prevents certain kinds of functional
> modifications. I am retorting that it is not the GPL that prevents
> things in the scenarios you are sketching.
The GPL is free enough.
"Free enough" doesn't have to include functions which are proprietary
by their very nature.
> > But, I don't agree that the GPL allows all functional modifications.
> The GPL has nothing at all against the functional modification you
If you like, I can change the nature of the proprietary function so that
it's even more facist.
For example, I could tie the function itself closer to some licensing