Lucas can have a few minor differences, IF he's using the original material. That I'm fine with. Ergo I'm fine with all the versions up to 1993. If he was to make more changes that differed significantly from the theatrical versions, then I'd call that a directors cut, and yes he should also release a theatrical print. However that definition does not fit the 1997 or 2004 versions for the simple reason that they all use newly created material. For this reason they are completely separate movies. They are not a different cut of the original movies, they can't be because they couldn't have been cut together that way in 1977, 80 or 83. A different cut of a movie is basically a cut that could have been put together at the time of the original release, using all the material available.
Simple right? An Original Empire Strikes Back movie is one that uses exclusively material that was created PRE-1980, including material not exclusively created for it - so long as the material was intended for use in the film. Anything else is not a true Original Empire Strikes Back movie. If it contains material created after 1980 then it is a new movie that simply uses some older material. Zion (and thankyou Zion for at least having the sense to advertise the fact on the discs they are not original) is using original material, and newly created 2004 material that he is creating for the release; ergo it is not an original Star Wars movie.
MeBeJedi I just spent the better part of an hour deleting spyware shit that my 12-year-old brother infected the PC with. You seem to be the kind of person that would claim it is your right to put in an EULA "we will put some invasive software on your PC" - without actually saying it like that, and making it seem more normal, and then use bait-software to infect people with invasive software that earns you revenue. That of course is not your right, and it is a completely illegal contract under Australian law. To explain this to you so you'd actually understand would take hours, so I'll give you the basic picture.
Let's say that you are hospitalised. The doctor comes up to you with a document for you to sign. I don't know medical terminology, but the doctor might say "This document basically says you agree to a surpovilliar tretrycardia, and that you understand this basic operation is going to take place under the effect of a local anaesthetic". You sign it in good faith and wake up 7 hours later to see your leg missing. You didn't know you agreed to have your leg cut off - that would be an illegal contract (meaning in the High Court of Australia you would successfully win your case against the hospital). This is because although you signed the document, and although the name of the operation was used - the doctor had failed to explain to you what it meant. You cannot sign something you don't understand and be legally binded to it.
Although, as I said explaining the full scope of this would take hours, it basically means that as far as I am concerned EULA's are not legal documents unless it can be proven they are read, understood and agreed to. If you install a software that you understand is all you are installing, and it ends up instaling more software - that is illegal.
It's like when you walk into a shop and there's a sign that says "It is a condition of entry into this store that all bags be presented upon leaving". That sign is not a legal document, even when you read it and understand it. If you walk into the shop without agreeing to it, then you cannot be binded to it. They can say to you on your way in "by entering this store, do you agree to present your bags upon leaving?" And if you say "yes, i do" - then, and only then would it actually be a legal document. The shop does not have a legal right to look into your possessions. Neither does police, unless they have grounds to suspect you of a crime.
Another example might be that there is a sign saying "we are not responsible for motor vehicle theft or damage incurred to your vehicle while parking in this carpark". While it is technically legal, the scope to which it implies is not. For instance, if the on-duty parking-box boy spots someone smash a car window, hot wire the car and leave - and does nothing, then you do have legal grounds to sue the operators of the carpark. If he didn't see it, well you'd be out of luck there - unless you can prove that 1. you didn't read the sign and 2. you had reasonable grounds to believe that your car would be looked after. This might apply if you drove to a hotel, and let one of the hotel's employees park your car (just as an example I can think of).
As you can see I'm all for personal rights. I'm not capitalistic, I do not believe in censorship - in the government controlling the media etc - and I do believe that film history is important and will become more important in the years to come.