Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:33:52AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Being unmodifiable violates the usual "fully general" interpretation of
> the DFSG. Unfortunately, that interpetation isn't really fully general
> (and, if carried to the limit, would only allow us to distribute public
> domain software).
The usual interpretation is
"The creation of modifications and derivative works must be allowed in
general, though a few specific, narrow restrictions may be placed on what
may be created, if they do not seem to harm freedom significantly".
Got it? :-)
> Perhaps it's worth noting that, as it was originally written, the DFSG
> did not stand on its own but was a part of the social contract.
Wait, I thought it predated the Social Contract.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.