Re: Anton's amendment

[Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>]

Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:24:16PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> 
>>         I beg to differ. There is a reason the foundation docuyments
>>  have a 3:1 modification requirement: If a simple majority were
>>  enough to "interpret" codicils on a novel and unconvetional fashion,
>>  then there is no point of the constitutional requirement for super
>>  majority.
>
> The interpretation I proposed is not a novel and unconventional.  It
> is not novel because it represents notion for "free software" that is
> older that Debian.  It is not unconventional because it is widespread
> among the free software community.  I'd say that your interpretation
> is more unconventional than mine.

So which is "your interpretation", exactly?  

- That we have to read DFSG3 as "must allow reasonable modifications"?
  Then please explain how a license that forbids to remove off-topic
  sections is free according to that interpretation, in other words why
  removing such sections is not "reasonable".

- That we have to read DFSG3 as "must allow at least 2 modifications"?
  Then please explain why the number is not three, and whether any two
  allowed modifications would satisfy the clause.

- Whatever

Regards, Frank

-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)