Re: Anton's amendment

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

On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 09:37:12AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 
> > 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.

I understand that this is how you interpret DFSG.  (BTW, the list in
the brackets is not empty.)
 
> > 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.

This seams so to you because you use the first interpretation.  The
same way I could say that the first interpretation is a leeway because
DFSG don't say "as the user sees fit".
 
> > THIRD
> >    The license must allow as to make some modifications of the work.
> 
>         This contradicts what the DFSG says.

This contradicts the common notion of "free software", but otherwise
it is completely valid textual interpretation of DFSG.

>         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.

Just the opposite -- I wish we had more unambiguous DFSG.  The problem
is that the current DFSG allow these different interpretations.

Anton Zinoviev