Re: A possible GFDL compromise
Anthony DeRobertis <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I'm pretty sure it says "...the recipients' EXERCISE of the
> rights..." not "...the recipient's rights..." for a good reason:
> That it is quite intended to stop me from doing _anything_, legal,
> technical, or otherwise, to keep people from using the rights given
> to them by the GPL.
But I'm not restricting someone's exercise of their rights when I give
them GPL works on DRM media and, at the same time, give them source on
a traditional CD.
The GPL permits this sort of thing. It works precisely because it
*doesn't* disallow DRM explicitly, but instead describes what rights
and (through availability of the "preferred form for modification")
abilities the recipient must have. This circumvents DRM quite
effectively without falling down on the corner cases like the GFDL
I'm sure this is just a bug in the GFDL, though. I can't see where
the FSF would have a problem with making the emacs docs available on a
DRM-only PDA, say, so long as a non-DRM, non-opaque format were
provided as well.
I'm fairly convinced (despite the lack of info from the FSF on the
subject) that the only real deal-breaker in the GFDL is the invariant
sections bit. I think the rest (i.e., the DRM restrictions and even
the unwieldy opaque/clear distinction) could be worked out.
Jeremy Hankins <email@example.com>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03