Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

[Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org>]

On May 10, 2004, at 16:49, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 04:37:49PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > Not really, because we can distribute "compiled" versions of that
> > (which don't have all the sillyness).
>
> Even if that code includes a class browser and allows introspection 
> into
> its implementation?

If you're thinking of a specific instance, please bring it up. It's 
much easier to comment on, then.

DFSG 4 does require that "the license must explicitly permit 
distribution of software built from modified source code." so I suppose 
the answer is 'yes'.

> > [BTW: A lot of folks here want to get rid of that clause of the DFSG]
>
> After the recent experience with "cleaning up the language in the 
> social
> contract", I expect to eventually find out that those folks haven't
> thought things through very far.

I doubt removing the patch part of DFSG 4 would cause many problems.