Re: Interpreting the GFDL GR
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 02:31:48AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > We happen to have a clarification from one copyright holder (the FSF),
>
> Can you remind me where? I found RMS going to ask a lawyer in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00212.html
> but the not-for-debian comment wasn't very long after that.
I can't. Others have asserted that the FSF has clarified that they
don't mean the DRM clause to prohibit file permissions, sending files
with HTTPS (or Tor? or posting GPG-encrypted documentation on a
public FTP and only giving one person the password?), or putting
passwords on FTP servers; but that's just the FSF, not the general
case, so I havn't tried to confirm it.
(Note that people's assertions havn't necessarily been for each of
those examples above, just some of them. They all seem like equally
reasonable ways that I should be able to distribute a free work,
all serving similar reasonable goals.)
> It's delayed until after GPLv3. It seems that FSF won't run concurrent
> consultations. See message from Chancellor of FSF Europe Chapter Italy:
> http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2006-January/005448.html
> FSF Europe seem very friendly, open and transparent, even when I disagree
> with them about a topic.
Blow-offs like "The development of GNU licenses is not a Debian issue"
and their long-term refusal to respond to issues has given me a very
different impression.
It's irresponsible and damaging for those in the FSF's position to
propagate a buggy license--for years!--without fixing it. The rationale
doesn't change that, or lessen the resulting damage.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: