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

Re: DPL Debate unasked questions

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
> GFDL (relating to the "can't chmod a document" and "can't distribute a
> transparent copy separately") -- it might be fair to be strict about that,
> because we've been bitten by not being strict in the past on issues such
> as the pine license, but otoh, there's been reported written affirmations
> from Stallman that that's an incorrect interpretation, [...]

There have been claims of such affirmations, but a review of the
amendement thread shows no references to support those claims. I know
RMS wrote in 2003 that he *supposed* it didn't restrict encryption or
file access control on all copies, but "that's a new one on me" and he'd
ask a lawyer. Soon after, he refused to discuss FDL with us further.

Where is RMS's claim about the interpretation of the anti-DRM phrases?
I am mildly irritated that a GR can pass with only claims of evidence,
rather than showing actual evidence. Smoke and mirrors.

> If two weeks are enough to discuss major changes to the constitution,
> three ought to be enough to discuss electing a new DPL?

You're overrunning the campaign period, so apparently not!

I'm not going to comment on the DPL-related questions now. It's vote time.

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: