On Wednesday 01 February 2006 09:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > "The license must permit modifications". No if, and, or > buts. So no, I do not think that is actually true. Sure, it says it must permit modifications, but it doesn't way that it must permit ALL modifications. The way it reads, literally, could be interpreted as it must permit ALL modifcations, or as it must permit at least two modifications (so that "modifications" is plural). Anyway, you, or I, or anyone can go on and on about nitpicking what it says and what is or is not an "interpretation", but all of that is pointless, since the Debian Free Software Guidelines are, well, guidelines. I think it's completely appropriate for the developer body to determine how to apply those guidelines using their own common sense and gut feel, without resorting to grammatical nitpicking. So a vote on this doesn't require any changes to what the document says, nor does it change what the document means. It's merely showing what how majority of developers think the guideliens should be applied to the GFDL. -- Wesley J. Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> <xmpp:wjl@icecavern.net> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
Attachment:
pgpzPeHVperu4.pgp
Description: PGP signature