On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 06:01:41PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:10:18PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 05:03:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > > > no, acroread is DFSG non-free for other reasons that have nothing > > > to do with convenience. most notably, the complete absence of > > > source-code, and the right to modify and redistribute the source. > > > > Irrelevant. It doesn't matter that the process is inconvenient. > > > > Lack of source code and no permission to modify the existing article > > are just convenience. > > no, they're not "just convenience". they are non-negotiable requirements > of the DFSG. So you agree that non-modifiability is a requirement of the DFSG? So why do you continue to claim that the GFDL, prohibiting, as it does, the modification of the document, is DFSG-free? - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature