Re: A clarification for my interpretation of GFDL
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:11:11AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Firstly, if my needs require me to rtemove the secondary
> sections, and invariant sections, I should be allowed to do so
Ok. However so far, nobody could give a resonable example of needs
that can require you to remove the secodary sections. When I say
"reasonable example" I mean example that doesn't make the other free
licenses non-free.
> Secondly, I reject this as being wehat the text already
> present says. "The license must allow modifications" means that the
> license must allow modifications -- with no codicils that the
> modifications be what the author thinks is non-arbitary.
Are you still insisting on the absurd requirement "the license must
allow arbitrary modifications"? Are you going to say that for the
Debian project it has been always obvious that GPL is a non-free or at
least almost non-free license?
Anton Zinoviev
Reply to: