On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 10:06:52PM +0200, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > >>>There are still problems with, e.g., transparent forms. > > > > > >>If you meant problem with encrypted filesystems, this question was > >>already answered. > > > > > >a) I didn't. Check the archive for a long discussion. > > Well, most of problems were on how people interpret "You may not use > technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying > of the copies you make or distribute." > > One who use your arguments can say: it is prohibited to have firewall or > password checking on the PC with FDL documentation. > > It is quite clear that it is not the intended way to enforce FDL. It is quite clear that this is what the license says. The intent of the authors is rather less clear. It is also irrelevant. Are you trying to make the argument "Since this is an unreasonable restriction for free documentation, we can pretend it doesn't exist" ? That doesn't make a lot of sense. > Since > it is not fixed till now, I conclude there is no bug here. Another point > can be that bugfix is in work... Alternatively, the FSF could have decided that they do not wish to discuss the matter, since we don't consider invariant sections free - and therefore have ignored all the other points we've raised, including this one. This alternative happens to be the one which is accurate, as far as I can see (at least, that's what RMS said). > >b) As far as encrypted file systems, the only answer I see is that the > > GFDL is non-free. > > Please, check the archive. The archive contains a lot of people saying this makes the GFDL non-free. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgp_Q0PoCleBv.pgp
Description: PGP signature