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

Re: Anton's amendment



On Wednesday 01 February 2006 11:36, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "Wesley J. Landaker" <wjl@icecavern.net> writes:
> > 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).
>
> So, would you regard a license which permitted the modification of
> some features of a program, but not others, to be free?  I would not.

The point isn't what *I* believe about it. I've haven't yet said what I 
believe about that. The point is that 

> > I think it's completely appropriate for the developer body to determine
> > how to apply those guidelines using their own common sense and gut
> > feel, without resorting to grammatical nitpicking. So a vote on this

> But this must be done in a *principled* way.

Yes, I agree. Hence, "common sense" and "gut feel". But it's a fact that all 
developers "common sense" about the GFDL isn't leading to the same 
decisions. If you're going to argue that having this GR needs a 3:1 
decision on one option because it overrules the "common sense" of Debian, 
then *all* the options should need a 3:1 majority, since they are all, in 
effect, overruling the "guidelines" part of the DFSG with respect to the 
GFDL and unilaterally declaring it either free, free-in-some-cases, or 
non-free entirely. 

My argument is that each of these options is a possible valid interpretation 
of the DFSG. 

But, please stop interpreting this to mean that I support one option or the 
other, as I have not yet said what of those options I support. (I will 
state it by my vote after I've considered it more carefully.)

-- 
Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> <xmpp:wjl@icecavern.net>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2

Attachment: pgpbchtg998QN.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: