Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Joe Buck <jbuck@welsh-buck.org>
> For the "DRM" restriction, I think that "that is not the intended reading
> of the license" applies. The FSF clearly did not intend to keep people
> from using chmod on a GFDL document, and did not intend other problems
> pointed out. [...]
What do you base that clear intention on? I thought RMS ultimately
refused to discuss the implications of the anti-DRM with us when
asked. -- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00825.html
> For the "Transparent and Opaque Copies" provision,
> [...] I did not understand why debian-legal found
> the latter provision a DFSG violation. [...]
I wasn't aware that we had, outside of limited situations where
no Transparent Copy of the work exists. What do you mean?
Mostly, that clause is a PITA and a practical problem for
the archive network AIUI.
> Remember, the words "This is a compromise" appear in the DFSG, despite
> the fact that the denizens of debian-legal resist compromise.
That is your opinion or interpretation, not a fact. Many posters
spend a lot of time searching for "everyone wins" compromises.
For the FDL, I feel the best "everyone wins" is a new version.
Hoping for answers,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: