[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Anton's amendment



On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 12:46:55 -0300, Margarita Manterola <margamanterola@gmail.com> said: 

> On 2/1/06, Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
>> Could some one tell me why including the invariant sections of a
>> GFDL licensed work in main would not require us to modify the DFSG
>> or the social contract?
>> 
>> Specifically, I am looking at the SC:
>> >>  1. Debian will remain 100% free
>> 
>> And the DFSG:
>> >>       The license must allow modifications and derived works,
>> >>       and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms
>> >>       as the license of the original software.

> Even though I strongly disagree with Anton's position and reading of
> the DFSG, I think that the point is that the text says "allow
> modifications" and not "allow for the whole source to be modified".

        Err, there are no restrictions as to what is to be modified.

> Of course, the "spirit" of the DFSG is that of allowing to modify
> the whole text, but it's not explicitly stated, and thus allows for
> unbeliavable conclusions like "Invariant Sections are free".

        I am sorry, it says allow modifications. Period. Not allow
 modifications only in parts that some people consider important. Not
 allow modifications, except in secondary sections. 

> It would be nice to ammend that part of the DFSG to clearly state
> what we mean when we say that we want to be able to modify the work.
> But, until then, misreadings of the text can't be prevented.

        I think that if we want to stretch the meaning of some common
 phrases to fit a different agenda, we must "clarify" that such
 uncommon interpretations are to be employed.

        If one want to spin whatever is written, by questioning, as my
 former president did "depends on wqhat the meaning of the word is
 is", anything can be made to mean almost anything. However, we must
 hold to a common, reasonable meaning of words if we wish to
 communicate at all. When you say "The license must allow
 modifications", it does mean something, with no if, ands, and
 buts. If you want to add "if, and, and buts", it is of course
 something you can do -- hence Anton's amendment is still on the
 ballot.

        manoj
-- 
Be different: conform.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C



Reply to: