Re: GR proposal - Restricted-media amendments to the DFSG
Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com>
>
> On 4/11/06, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > Nevertheless, neither of us would be made happy by a detailed
> > repeat of it on -vote. You'd remain unconvinced and I'd be
> > annoyed by the lost time.
>
> Your comment, here, does not agree with the meaning conveyed by your
> April 7 comment:
>
> >>> I keep asking why some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted to
> >>> prohibit all copy-control measures, as that seems to be a crucial
> >>> question in this, and nobody answered yet AFAICT.
>
> You might claim that you're not satisfied with the answers, but
> that's not what you did claim.
It agrees fine. Your messages are replies, not answers. So much is left
unexplained in that reasoning and there's no suggestion that it has much
to do with the drafting, rather than the interpretation by some FDL-fans.
[...]
> > Maybe it's enough to agree that the boundary is unclear.
>
> I thought the issues I raised in my previous message were
> quite clear.
The main clarity shown was disagreement with various definitions
in current copyright law. While virtuous, it limits relevance.
> > Please do not cc me if you send to -vote, or at least mark it as a cc!
>
> My apologies -- I hit the wrong reply button. I tried to abort and
> resend to the list, but it looks like two independent replies went
> out.
Ah, that explains it. Thanks. Have you considered using a less
buggy webmail that doesn't MIME needlessly?
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: