Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

Raul Miller wrote:

> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:33:52AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
<snip>
> 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?  :-)

<snip>
> 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.