Re: GR proposal - Restricted-media amendments to the DFSG
Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On 4/12/06, MJ Ray <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > >>> 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.
My question is: why do some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted
to prohibit all technical measures that obstruct or control reading or
So, you claim that no-one claims the FDL wasn't drafted to cover *all*
> I find it relatively trivial to show that this state
> of affairs does not exist.
That message is irrelevant because it is concerned with neither the
FDL's drafting, nor the copyright law meaning of technical measures.
It tells me that you don't think the FDL covers technical measures,
but that seems to be because you have a personal definition of
technical measures based on dictionaries rather than the bad laws.
Hope that helps,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct