Re: Interpreting the GFDL GR
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 02:31:48AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > We happen to have a clarification from one copyright holder (the FSF),
> >
> > Can you remind me where? I found RMS going to ask a lawyer in
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00212.html
> > but the not-for-debian comment wasn't very long after that.
>
> I can't. Others have asserted that the FSF has clarified that they
> don't mean the DRM clause to prohibit file permissions, sending files
> with HTTPS (or Tor? or posting GPG-encrypted documentation on a
> public FTP and only giving one person the password?), or putting
> passwords on FTP servers; but that's just the FSF, not the general
> case, so I havn't tried to confirm it.
Has anyone got a pointer to this clarification from FSF, please?
[...]
> > FSF Europe seem very friendly, open and transparent, even when I disagree
> > with them about a topic.
>
> Blow-offs like 'The development of GNU licenses is not a Debian issue'
> and their long-term refusal to respond to issues has given me a very
> different impression.
I refer only to FSF Europe. My blood pressure is much better now
I talk to them instead of FSF Inc. Probably cultural problems with
the main FSF, IMO, but I don't know if it's a Europe-US thing or
their organisational culture.
I think FSF Inc fails to follow the BBB Standards for Charity
Accountability <http://www.give.org/standards/newcbbbstds.asp>
in many worrying ways and North American residents (who should be
more familiar with the applicable tools than I am) should press for
improvement. I'm amazed anyone donates to them.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: