Re: A clarification for my interpretation of GFDL

[Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg>]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:23:18PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> wrote:
> 
> > In order to make reasonably evident that this is not just my
> > interpretation but also interpretation that is shared by many other
> > Debian developers I decided to ask Richard Stallman for the opinion of
> > FSF.
> >
> > This was the question I asked Stallman:
> >
> >    Can you confirm that the second interpretation expresses properly
> >    what modifications must be allowed about a particular software
> >    program or documentation for it to be considered free by FSF.
> 
> So you did ask him some question about free software.  And now you want
> to use his answer to justify a particular interpretation of DFSG clause
> 3.  How does that go together?

I don't use his answer to justify a particular interpretation of DFSG.
The common notion of "free software" justifies my interpretation.  I
only wanted to make sure to everybody that my interpretation is not
only mine but it is interpretation acceptable by the free software
community in general.
 
> If at all, you should have asked him (or some linguist or lawyer or my
> mother) the same sentence ending "free according to DFSG clause 3".

Before you go to use such voice you'd better think what "free
according to DFSG clause 3" realy means.  Please explain me the
meaning of the phrase "must allow modifications" in a way that would
not make GPL a non-free license.

Together with Stallman we made a perfectly acceptable interpretation
of DFSG3.  People who object it have failed in their attempts to
explain what their "obvious" interpretatioin of DFSG3 realy is.

Anton Zinoviev