Re: GFDL GR, vote please!
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:06:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > The interpretation being proposed seems to be "the DFSG allows certain
> > > restrictions on modifications, including the GPL's interactivity
> > > notification stuff and the GFDL's unmodifiable sections, with others
> > > potentially to be determined later". That seems reasonably easy to apply:
> > > deal with the existing ones as is, and assume there'll be another vote
> > > in future should any more come up.
> > The interpretation that I hold is the following:
> > The license must give us permissions to modify the work in
> > order to adapt it to various needs or to improve it, with no
> > substantive limits on the nature of these changes, but there
> > can be superficial requirements on how they are packaged.
> > However this interpretation is not part of my proposal. My proposal
> > invalidates some possible interpretations of DFSG but it doesn't state
> > which interpretation is the correct one.
> Which is for me a big problem, given that mine is one of those
> interpretations that's invalidated -- and, according to my reading, so is
> *yours*, since being unable to remove multiple pages of essays when
> borrowing a few paragraphs of text is a "substantive limit".
I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some
modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some
need, then the document is non-free. Otherwise, that is if the
license does not forbid any necessary modification, the document may