Re: Anton's amendment
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 10:36:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> "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.
>
> This is why your interpretation sounds entirely ad-hoc. If you
> *really* think that the correct reading of this part of the DFSG is to
> say that as long as two modifications are permitted, it does not
> matter what restrictions are on the rest of a program, then I think
> you are proffering something so implausible it need not be considered.
Wesley wrote "The way it reads, literally, could be interpretted".
This doesn't mean he thinks this is the correct reading of DFSG.
> But this must be done in a *principled* way. If you are saying simply
> that thet GFDL should be subject to a *different* set of requirements
> than the ones you think should be applied to programs, then you can
> find no support for this position in the DFSG. Indeed, we recently
> amended the DFSG *specifically for the purpose* of saying that the
> same conditions apply to everything in Debian, whether a program or
> documentation or something else.
It is not necessary to apply different conditions for programs and
documentations in order to say that GFDL is free. I insist that with
proper reading the _current_ version of DFSG is compatible with GFDL.
Anton Zinoviev
Reply to: