Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 02:29:13PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> > Richard Stallman <email@example.com> writes:
> > > IIRC, the specific section that most people are refering to is:
> > >
> > > You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
> > > or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.
> > >
> > > This means that you cannot publish them under DRM systems to restrict
> > > the possessors of the copies. It isn't supposed to refer to use of
> > > encryption or file access control on your own copy.
> > >
> > > I will talk with our lawyer and see if that sentence needs to be
> > > clarified.
> > I believe modifying that section to read "copying of the copies
> > you make and distribute" would eliminate may objections.
> No, prohibiting DRM systems is unambiguously non-free under the DFSG.
I will tend to consider the opposite that the section about "technical
measure" protect the point 5 and 6 of the DFSoftwareG. The section is
here in order to protect an equal and free access to the
documentation. (Maybe the objective is not clear in GFDL but this
could be enhanced)
Could you point me to the section of DFSG where you see that
prohibiting DRM (in order to limit access and copy of the document) is
unambiguous non-free ?
-- Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) -- http://www.foo.be/
-- "Knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance
-- that we can solve them" Isaac Asimov