On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 11:00:34PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > Yes, I am uneasy myself on that clause. But see, I regard > removal of copyright notices as prohibited by copyright law, and if > the original program displayed copyright notices, not being able to > remove those notices from the displayed text is closer in spirit to > the non-removal of copyright notices from the sources that I think it > passes my "is free" radar.
I can see why you are uneasy with that clause - it makes impossible to just say "arbitrary modification". And the clause we are talking about is not the only necessary exception for "arbitrary modification". If you say that the non-removal of those notices from the displayed text passes your "is free" radar and the invariant secondary sections do not pass -- I can acknowledge this and I understand this. However I don't understand why you think that your interpretation is the only one possible -- it is not. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]