Re: Anton's amendment
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:13:45AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> Yes. So, what is the interpretation being seriously put forth? That
> we should allow licenses which restrict parts of a program to being
> off-limits? ("You may change gnugo in any way you like, except that
> you may not make any changes which weaken its playing strength."?)
> ("You may change exim any way you like, except that you must not cause
> it have any spam-filtering features not already present"?) ("You may
> change Gnu Emacs any way you like, as long as you don't change the
> default keybindings"?) We would not accept any of these.
We would not accept any of these because they prohibit some useful
modifications.
> So what *is* the interpretation, under which the modification
> prohibitions of the GFDL are ok, and which similar modifications of
> programs are not?
The following: the license must give us enough permission to modify
the work in order to adapt it for various tasks and to improve it.
Anton Zinoviev
Reply to: