Re: Anton's amendment

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:22:02AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         Could some one tell me why including the invariant sections of
>  a GFDL licensed work in main would not require us to modify the DFSG
>  or the social contract?

because the GFDL is not a non-free license.

GFDL invariant sections do not make a document non-free.  see DFSG patch clause.

>         Specifically, I am looking at the SC:
> >>  1. Debian will remain 100% free
> 
>         And the DFSG:
> >>       The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
> >>       allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license
> >>       of the original software.
> 
>         We would need to change the must allow modifications bit, as I
>  see it -- since a license attached to a work must allow modifications
>  to the work, as it is currently stated. (I do not consider the
>  license to be part of the work).

no, it's not necessary to change anything.

DFSG patch clause. 

read it.

explains all.

restricting modifications to original + patch only is explicitly
permitted.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)