[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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.

Reply to: