Re: Anton's amendment

[Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg>]

On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:32:00PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:22:10 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> said: 
>
> >> If you wish to extend the list of exceptions, that is fine. But
> >> that does mean the DFSG must be clarified to add to the list.
> 
> > I don't belive it is reasonable to create exhaustive list of
> > exceptions.  I prefer the second interpretation of DFSG3.
> 
>         You have your right to clarify the DFSG to say explicitly what
>  you interpret it to mean.

You also have your right to clarify the DFSG to say explicitly what
you interpret it to mean.

> >> When someone says "The license must permit modifications", there
> >> are no restrictions placed on the mods by the license.
> 
> > Notice that:
> 
> >    1. Even GPL places restrictions on the modifications (look at
> >       http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/01/msg00240.html)
> 
>         That is a reiteration of your statement, but without any
>  additional reasoning that actually sways me.
> 
>         (BTW, you elided the following in that message: Exception: if
>         the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print
>         such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not
>         required to print an announcement. )

With or without the exception it makes impossible the intepretation of
"must allow modifications" as "must allow arbitrary modifications".
You may think that the text "arbitrary modifications with the
following exceptions ..." is better than my interpretation but that is
not enough.  You have to prove that DFSG or some other decision of
Debian make my interpretation invalid.

Anton Zinoviev