Re: Anton's amendment
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006 12:43:02 +0200, Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> said:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 03:59:14PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:29:22 +0200, Anton Zinoviev
>> <anton@lml.bas.bg> said:
>>
>> > The 3:1 requirement would be necessary only if you can prove that
>> > "we insist on modifiability of all parts".
>>
>> Procedurally, I think that the 3:1 requirement stays until you can
>> prove "The license must allow modifications" only talks about
>> sections that the author says can be modified.
> I do not claim that "the license must allow modifications" only
> talks about sections that the author says can be modified so I don't
> have to prove it. My interpretation doesn't limit the modifications
> to some particular sections. I expressed my interpretation in my
> first message in this thread. I received a clarification by
> Stallman that I will report in a separate message and you can see
> that there are no limitations of this sort.
Err, I have no idea what your first message said. If it is the
old refrain that "License must allow for modifications" means you can
only modify some restricted subset of the work, I do not see that as
what the DFSG currently says. If it is "reasonable" modifications,
while I still do not see that as what the DFSG says, removing
secondary sections is eminently reasonable. If it is"only make
changes the user needs", removing ssecondary sections may well be
what the user needs. I have no idea which interpretation you mean
here.
Either the user can modify invariant sections, or the user can
classify which sections can be invariant, or the user has to only
modify what the author says he can modify.
manoj
--
"You know, of course, that the Tasmanians, who never committed
adultery, are now extinct."- M. Somerset Maugham
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: