Re: documentation x executable code

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 06:04:08PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> 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:
> > > 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?

how many times does it have to be said?

because the DFSG explicitly allows a license to restrict modification so that
it is only permitted by patch.

and, as you pointed out yourself, this freedom (to patch) exists even when it
is not explicitly granted by the license.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)