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

Re: Anton's amendment

On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 18:17:31 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> said: 

> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:37:12AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > Here are three possible interpretations of "The license must
>> > allow modifications":
>> > FIRST
>> >    The license must allow us to modify the work as we see fit
>> >    with
>> > possible exception for the license and [list here restrictions we
>> > already accept as free].
>> Actually, the license attached to a work (of which the license is
>> not a part) must allow the work to be modified as the user sees
>> fit.

> I understand that this is how you interpret DFSG.  (BTW, the list in
> the brackets is not empty.)

        I think that is what is written, and is not just an
 interpretation. If you wish to extend the list of exceptions, that is
 fine. But that does mean the DFSG must be clarified to add to the

>> >    The license must give us enough permissions to modify the work
>> >    in
>> > order to adapt it to various needs or to improve it.
>> You must change the DFSG to allow such leeway. There is nothing in
>> the DFSG that permits such leeway; if anything, the DFSG must be
>> modified to "clarify" it in an editorial change.

> This seams so to you because you use the first interpretation.  The
> same way I could say that the first interpretation is a leeway
> because DFSG don't say "as the user sees fit".

        When someone says "The license must permit modifications",
 there are no restrictions placed on the mods by the license. Of
 course, other legal restrictions may apply -- but not restrictions by
 the license. This is what is written.

>> > THIRD
>> >    The license must allow as to make some modifications of the
>> >    work.
>> This contradicts what the DFSG says.

> This contradicts the common notion of "free software", but otherwise
> it is completely valid textual interpretation of DFSG.

        "The license must permit modifications". No if, and, or
 buts. So no, I do not think that is actually true.

>> If you want to interpret things quite so differently, it is of
>> course your right to do so, you just must change the DFSG to cater
>> to this interpretation.

> Just the opposite -- I wish we had more unambiguous DFSG.  The
> problem is that the current DFSG allow these different
> interpretations.

        I beg to differ. And, anyway, you are perfectly within your
 rights to push through editorial changes that clarify the DFSG.

A girl's conscience doesn't really keep her from doing anything
wrong-- it merely keeps her from enjoying it.
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: