Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:14:27AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote:
> Adam McKenna writes:
>
> > But if you haven't given the copies to anyone, you can't be trying to
> > obstruct or control the reading or further copying done by anyone except
> > yourself.
> >
> > I understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong. You are insisting
> > on a basically insane literal interpretation of the license.
>
> As far as I know, debian-legal has never tried to interpret a license
> contrary to what the text says just because someone thinks reading the
> text in the most straightforward way is "basically insane". The usual
> conclusion in such cases is that the license is in fact flawed.
The license is obviously flawed. But not flawed to the point of being
non-free (at least, not due to the DRM clause).
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@debian.org> <adam@flounder.net>
Reply to: