Re: GR proposal - Restricted-media amendments to the DFSG
On 4/12/06, MJ Ray <email@example.com> wrote:
> Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > On 4/11/06, MJ Ray <email@example.com> 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.
That's unnecessarily elliptical.
Your question, as stated, asks for an explanation for a state of affairs
which does not exist. I find it relatively trivial to show that this state of
affairs does not exist.
You are never going to get a satisfactory answer for why something exists
when it does not exist. The best you can hope for is replies.