Re: Anton's amendment

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> writes:

>> 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.

Can you please explain then where the DFSG contains any statement of
limitation on the concept of modifiability?  Where does it allow for
any limitations on modifiability?

More specifically: if there is such a limitation in the text, surely
it must be clear whether the limitation is:

1) Only applicable to functional items
2) Only applicable to useful modifications
3) Only applicable to minor modifications
4) Only applicable to modifications which do not change the purpose of
   the work
5) Only applicable to modifications which are approved by the original
   author of the work.

I submit that the DFSG does not help you to decide *which* limitation
is the right one, and that for this reason, you cannot plausibly claim
to find *any* limitation of the right-to-modify in the DFSG.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you did more than just say "my
interpretation is the one that let's the GFDL in", and say what your
interpretation *is*, and explain how it is an interpretation of the
*text* of the GFDL, and the context in which it was written.

If you cannot do that, you can still propose an amendment to it, as
Manoj has already construed it.

Thomas