Anton Zinoviev <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:06:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: >> >> > 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 > be free. This is no good. Where is it defined what is "necessary", and who deems what is "necessary"? What /I/ consider to be necessary may be considered "unnecessary" (and hence, not allowed) by the copyright holders. As an example, the FSF do not appear to consider the ability to remove invariant sections necessary in the current version of the GFDL for example, whereas I (and others) do. The reference cards were just an example of this need; aggregate works were another, and there were several other real-world cases where a need was demonstrated. Applying your test, in my eyes, still leaves the GFDL a non-free licence. Could we draw this debate to some sort of conclusion? I continue to remain unconvinced by the majority of your arguments, many of which are still poorly explained. Regards, Roger -- Roger Leigh Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848. Please sign and encrypt your mail.
Description: PGP signature