[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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 <rms@gnu.org> 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/
-- 	   http://pgp.ael.be:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x44E6CBCD
-- 	   "Knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance
-- 				  that we can solve them" Isaac Asimov

Reply to: