On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 03:06:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > The interpretation being proposed seems to be "the DFSG allows certain > > > restrictions on modifications, including the GPL's interactivity > > > notification stuff and the GFDL's unmodifiable sections, with others > > > potentially to be determined later". That seems reasonably easy to apply: > > > deal with the existing ones as is, and assume there'll be another vote > > > in future should any more come up. > > > The interpretation that I hold is the following: > > > The license must give us permissions to modify the work in > > order to adapt it to various needs or to improve it, with no > > substantive limits on the nature of these changes, but there > > can be superficial requirements on how they are packaged. > > > However this interpretation is not part of my proposal. My proposal > > invalidates some possible interpretations of DFSG but it doesn't state > > which interpretation is the correct one. > > Which is for me a big problem, given that mine is one of those > interpretations that's invalidated -- and, according to my reading, so is > *yours*, since being unable to remove multiple pages of essays when > borrowing a few paragraphs of text is a "substantive limit".
I think the following is an useful test. If the license forbids some modification that is necessary in order to adapt the document to some need, then the document is non-free. Otherwise, that is if the license does not forbid any necessary modification, the document may be free. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]