Re: Anton's amendment
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:20:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> writes:
>
> > Not everybody reads the text as you so it is just an interpretation.
>
> This is not sufficient. You must explain how your interpretation is
> more plausible or likely. If it is just an ad-hoc thing, designed
> only to get the particular conclusion you want for this case, then
> Manoj is on solid ground.
>
> I have not yet seen such an interpretation of this sort, in which
> explanation and analysis of similar cases and such is proffered. This
> does not mean it cannot be done, but it has not.
This interpretation is not ad-hoc thing and I strongly belive that it
represents not only my view but also the view of FSF. I asked Richard
Stallman for confirmation and I will report here when I receive his
reply.
Anton Zinoviev
Reply to: