Re: {SPAM} Re: Anton's amendment
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:59:51PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Em Sex, 2006-02-03 às 11:43 +0200, Anton Zinoviev escreveu:
> > If GPL didn't contain the clause we are discussing then you
> > would say that a license with such clause is non-free.
>
> I still don't know why you think this GPL clause has something to do
> with invariant sections...
But I am not comparing this GPL clause with the invariant sections!
Manoj requires 3:1 supermajority for my proposal with the argument
that my reading of DFSG is unconventional. This argument means that
there is some conventional reading of DFSG. So far the only
presumably "conventional" reading of DFSG was that "the license must
allow arbitrary modifications". This reading would make GPL non-free
so it can not be "conventional".
Anton Zinoviev
Reply to: