[Bill Allombert] > > > No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from > > > using the software. > > > > Exactly. And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the > > documentation if they work in a security field. > > The GFDL does ban them: they are not allowed to copy the document on > their computer so they cannot read it. Don't be ridiculous. Nowhere in the GFDL does it say "people working in security-related fields cannot use this work". It doesn't even say "people working in security-related fields cannot copy this work to their hard drives". Nobody is forcing you to encrypt your filesystems. Let me try another analogy, since you seem to be having a lot of trouble with this point. There may be some fields of endeavor which require the use of Windows 2000, because most of the software they need only runs on Windows 2000. This does not imply that all our software must build and run correctly on Windows 2000 in order to comply with DFSG 6. And it doesn't mean that Debian as a whole violates DFSG 6 by not running that company's Windows applications. It is your choice to encrypt your hard disk, or to run Windows 2000. Or your company's choice. But it has nothing to do with "discrimination against fields of endeavor". > But it still does not say "giving the rights outlined in the rest of > the DFSG", it says "The license must not restrict anyone from making > use of the program in a specific field of endeavor". When you're trying to break down the GFDL, please pick something other than DFSG 6. It doesn't mean what you think it means. And I can't believe I'm still having this conversation.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature