Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:40:08 +1000
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 11:46:43AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > Speaking of the GFDL, only those documents released under the GNU FDL
> > are non-free that make use of invariant sections for anything else
> > than its license, right?
>
> I believe various folks have quibbles with other sections of the GFDL too;
> such as the inability to place GFDL'ed docs under DMCA-ish "technological
> protection measures" (which can variously be interpreted as DVD region
> coding or crypto).
"quibbling"? Just so people have a reminder:
You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
The FSF folk have acknowledged that this is an honest bug in the
license, in that it's far too broad and disallows anybody from storing
any copies they make in any manner which prevents others from accessing
them.
"quibbling" is kind of derogatory.
--
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud.
After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it.
OpenPGP v4 key ID: 4096R/59DDCB9F
Fingerprint: CC53 F124 35C0 7BC2 58FE 7A3C 157D DFD9 59DD CB9F
Retreive from subkeys.pgp.net or risk key corruption
Reply to: