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

Re: Question about GR-2006-004

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006, Francesco Poli wrote:
> OK, but reaffirming the literal meaning of DFSG#2 now does not help
> a future discussion where the DFSG will hopefully be changed to
> unambiguously affect all works (both programmatic and
> non-programmatic).

It doesn't help or hinder it; discussions about what changes to the
DFSG should be made or the nature of future discussions about those
changes are just totally out of its scope. (And in the latter case,
totally out of the scope of any GR.) [If it's too difficult to
separate considering what a text currently says versus considering
what one wishes it said, there's not much I can do to help.]

Don Armstrong

The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion ... refutes its thesis
far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored
effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all
the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting
on it--and is just as likely to succeed.
 -- Alex Kozinski in Silveira V Lockyer

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: