On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:16:35PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > These are three non-solutions with respect to the freedom to make > arbitrary functional modifications to the work - which lies that the > very core of the DFSG.
Given that "arbitrary functional modifications" would include illegal activities and "arbitrary legal functional modifications" would not include activities which are disallowed by the copyright statement, and that "arbitrary functional modifications which would be legal if it were not for the copyright" has an additional set of problems (without the copyright statement no copying is legal, and with any other example statement this is a requirement for that exact copyright)... I don't think that "arbitrary functional modifications" is a very accurate representation of what the DFSG is really trying to allow for. -- Raul