Re: Anton's amendment
On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:53:44 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> said:
> 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?
> Unfortunately DFSG are not unambiguous and obviously the people
> understand them in various ways. If we decide that the invariant
> sections are free, this will require some of us to change their
> interpretations of DFSG.
Not everything is a matter of interpretation.
> Because of this ambiguity I realy belive that we need to modify DFSG
> in some future GR.
I do not see this ambiguity: Everything in Debian must be
free, free means the work shall be modifiable, that falls foul of the
invariant sections.
>> Specifically, I am looking at the SC:
>> >> 1. Debian will remain 100% free
> Yes, Debian must 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).
> Here are three possible interpretations of "The license must allow
> modifications":
> FIRST
> The license must allow us to modify the work as we see fit with
> possible exception for the license and [list here restrictions we
> already accept as free].
Actually, the license attached to a work (of which the license
is not a part) must allow the work to be modified as the user sees
fit.
> SECOND
> The license must give us enough permissions to modify the work in
> order to adapt it to various needs or to improve it.
You must change the DFSG to allow such leeway. There is
nothing in the DFSG that permits such leeway; if anything, the DFSG
must be modified to "clarify" it in an editorial change.
> THIRD
> The license must allow as to make some modifications of the work.
This contradicts what the DFSG says.
> Obviously, the third interpretation is too loose and I doubt that
> there are Debian developers who accept it. Nevertheless, it is a
> possible interpretation of the current text of DFSG. For the first
> and the second interpretation I can say that there are developers
> who accept them.
If you want to interpret things quite so differently, it is of
course your right to do so, you just must change the DFSG to cater to
this interpretation.
Even if you think such changes are merely editorial in nature,
even editorial changes to a foundation document come with majority
requirements.
manoj
--
"A pacifist who calls the police isn't one; hired violence is still
violence." Clayton E. Cramer optilink!cramer
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: