Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller wrote:
> 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)...
"arbitrary functional modifications which would be legal if the work were in
the public domain"
> I don't think that "arbitrary functional modifications" is a very accurate
> representation of what the DFSG is really trying to allow for.
Or is it? :-)
There are none so blind as those who will not see.