Re: Anton's amendment

[Daniel Ruoso <daniel@ruoso.com>]

Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 11:13 -0700, Wesley J. Landaker escreveu:
> On Wednesday 01 February 2006 09:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >         "The license must permit modifications". No if, and, or
> >  buts. So no, I do not think that is actually true.
> Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way that it must 
> permit ALL modifications. The way it reads, literally, could be interpreted 
> as it must permit ALL modifcations, or as it must permit at least two 
> modifications (so that "modifications" is plural). 

Please, We all know that DFSG wasn't raised without any references...
The freedom 1 (which is clearly one direct reference of DFSG) already
says "adapt to your needs", and *does not specify which needs are
valid*, and also it *does not judges if something already fits to
whoever needs*. It's *up to the user* to decide if something fit to his
needs or not, and invariant sections *prevents the user* from deciding
that.

daniel