Raul Miller wrote: > 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)...
"arbitrary functional modifications which would be legal if the work were in the public domain" > I don't think that "arbitrary functional modifications" is a very accurate > representation of what the DFSG is really trying to allow for. Or is it? :-) -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
