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

Re: Clarifying non-free parts of the GNU FDL

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.
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: