Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Monday, Sep 15, 2003, at 12:37 US/Eastern, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Anthony DeRobertis <email@example.com> 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.
Sure you are. If you prevent people from copying the binary (for
example), you are keeping them from exercising their rights under GPL
Now, if you happen to distribute on DRM-capable media, but allow
copying, unlimited use, etc. anyway, that's fine. You certainly haven't
restricted the exercise of rights there.
For example, I think its fine if you distribute a GPL work in binary
form as a PDF. I don't think its fine if you turn on the "can't copy
portions of this document" bit, because GPL 2 says I have the right to
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.
I hope so.