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

Re: Anton's amendment



On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:00:47 -0700, Wesley J Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> said: 

> In the same e-mail you quoted, I stated a possible alternate
> interpretation:

> On Wednesday 01 February 2006 18:23, Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
>> My argument is that it's an absolutely and completely valid
>> interpretation--in the full spirit of the DFSG and the Debian
>> project--of "The license must permit modifications" to say that it
>> means instead, "The license must permit reasonable modification."

        I am sorry, I see these as significantly different
 statements. The former is not at all subjective: "Got
 work. modifications good". The latter brings in "reasonable". That is
 tricky -- whose reason? the authors? the users? This addition ob
 subjectivity is a whole new ball game.

        Also, since we are talking about the users rights, it would
 seem to me that the _user_ gets to decide what is reasonable, not the
 author -- iff the DFSG had added the word reasonable, which it does
 not.

        Again, people are free to add the word reasonable in that
 sentence -- but that is a change in the DFSG. I also think in that
 case some text should be added about who makes the decision, whether
 ever determination of reasonableness falls to a GR, or can the user
 decide -- or can the author decide what is reasonable. (That last bit
 is hard to swallow -- ["You can modify whatever you want, al long as
 what you modify is within the file called junk.txt"].

        Anyway, I am afraid I am not convinced by this line of
 argument; I do not think it meets the letter or the spririt of the
 DFSG as I see it.

        manoj
-- 
To downgrade the human mind is bad theology. Chesterton
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: