Re: Anton's amendment
Em Qua, 2006-02-01 às 23:00 +0200, Yavor Doganov escreveu:
> Since you and the Secretary (probably others as well) are interpeting
> the DFSG in a different way, perhaps it is a good idea to clarify that
> particular sentence, but it is not an obstacle for the current GR.
Well, it has been argued that this ?different? interpretation is the
only reasonable interpretation of DFSG3. This has been based in many
things, but IMHO, the deffinitive argument is backing up to the software
freedom 1[1], which clearly says that you must be able to "adapt it to
your needs", and *does not specify* which needs are that, and ensures
that *the user judges if something fits or not*.
Following this interpretation, Invariant Sections doesn't fit in DFSG3.
(you do agree with that, don't you?)
You surely can argue that this interpretation is not valid, but I still
didn't see any references that bases this interpretation, except by
reading the DFSG without taking into account anything else, like, er...,
it's history.
daniel
[1] I've said this before. DFSG3 clearly refers to Freedom 1 and Freedom
3. So, if you're in doubt, you could use it to understand DFSG better...
Reply to: