  Re: OSD && DFSG - different purposes  Russell Nelson
<nelson@crynwr.com> writes:  > Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: >  >
You are ignoring the *substance* of DFSG and focusing on its
literal >  > wording. > You have no argument why the literal
meaning differs from the > substance of #3.  You can't, because
it doesn't.  Go read the > rationale for #3.  The *substance* of
#3 is to preserve the right to make changes such as suit the
*changer*.  Under your interpretation, I could have a license
which prohibits "any change of the software which would allow it
to play Beethoven"!  >  > but the restriction that it adds for
the other group (a >  > requirement of public publication) is
one that we have *never* >  > recognized as DFSG-free. > I know,
and you can't point to anything in the DFSG that prohibits > it.
You just *know* it to be true, as an article of faith.  So why >
point to the DFSG?  Why say DFSG-free when what you really mean
-- > what the real test is -- is debian-legal-free.  Because
debian-legal-free i