On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 06:32:17PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 18:15, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 07:09:18PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > > > Specifically, would it be possible to > > > 1) Allow storage/transmission on encrypted filesystems/links to > > > counter the "DRM restriction"? > > > 2) Not require forcing distribution of transparent copies with bulk > > > opaque copies? > > > > > > If these clarifications were to be made, would the licence be > > > considered DFSG-free? Are there any other possible amendments that > > > could be made to make the licence DFSG-free? > > > > There are a few more clauses you need to waive (they're fairly boring > > and pointless clauses; I can't imagine anybody caring about them being > > removed). There's a list around here somewhere. > > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml only lists > those three. I've not read a more exhaustive treatment yet; if you have > a reference in the -legal archives I'd like to see it. Read further, notably around section 4. A bunch of those have to go (some are irrelevant when no such sections exist, others are not). Several of the later clauses depend on earlier non-free ones as well; they have to be removed or rewritten. I'm not really convinced it's practical to generate a free license by modifying the GFDL. It's mostly crap. Probably easier to just use the GPL. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature