Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Monday, Sep 8, 2003, at 18:06 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote:
First off, I've already noted that I do NOT belive the GFDL's current
wording to be free. Nor can I think of free wording. But I'm not sure
that there is no free wording.
The GPL requires that we distribute source to some parts of Debian on
"a medium customarily used for software interchange". It definitely
does not prohibit us from also distributing it on other things.
Sure. But it places restrictions on an aggregate software distribution.
It explicitly prohibits us from distributing entirely on certain things.
The (intended) GFDL, on the other hand, explicitly prohibits us from
distributing on certain things.
No, it doesn't. It explicitly prohibits us from using technical
measures to keep others from exercising their rights under the license.
We can certainly distribute on DRM media, provided we do not turn on
the "can't read" and "can't copy" bits.
Just like we can distribute on orange peels, as long as we offer source
CDs along with them.