This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: > "Wesley J. Landaker" <wjl@icecavern.net> writes: > > > 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). > > So, would you regard a license which permitted the modification of > some features of a program, but not others, to be free? I would not. In 1997, at the time of the writing of the DFSG, the BSD clause contained the obnoxious advertising clause. Yet it still made the list of 'licenses we consider free'. Is the advertising clause substantially different from an invariant section in intent? I do see differences (mostly that the single sentence the BSD license requires is shorter than an FSF essay), but since we are talking about _freedom_ here, is this license that says I may not remove a block of text that different than that license that says I may not remove this block of text? I am not convinced either way, mind you - I am just throwing it out there for opinions. Thanks, -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature