Re: Anton's amendment

[Kalle Kivimaa <killer@debian.org>]

Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> writes:
> I understand that this is how you interpret DFSG.  (BTW, the list in
> the brackets is not empty.)

Actually, I think that the DFSG already lists the license text as the
only unmodifiable part in the binary:

"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."

Note that a DFSG-free package may require that it may only be changed
if the changed package is distributed under the same license. Thus, in
this situation you can change everything else except the license.

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

I'm beginning to wonder if it might be worth it to have a GR proposal
to the effect:

Change the third clause of DFSG as follows:
"The license must allow any modifications (excluding modifying the
license text) and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed
under the same terms as the license of the original software."

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*           PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer           *