On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 12:44:00PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > > > On Sunday, Sep 7, 2003, at 17:24 US/Eastern, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > >> > > >>Could you point me to the section of DFSG where you see that > > >>prohibiting DRM (in order to limit access and copy of the document) is > > >>unambiguous non-free ? > > > > > >That would be #1. > > > > "The LICENSE of a Debian component may not..." > > > > How is that unambiguously non-free under DFSG 1? DFSG clearly speaks > > only of the license. > > The subject under discussion is a license which prohibits distribution > on DRM media.
Not on media. On technical methods that limit the free access to the documentation. The text in GFDL is here to protect the free access of the documentation and can be understood as a way to protect the #1. This is 'somewhat' comparable that the GNU General Public License requires that you provide a source code capable of being modified (section 3 of the GNU GPL). The difficult point is here that DFSG is generic. Comparing both is difficult and prone to errors. Maybe a specific Debian Free Documentation Guideline is needed ? Maybe also some wording can be enhanced in the GFDL (like about '''''DRM'''''). The changes are needed on the both sides. adulau -- -- Alexandre Dulaunoy (adulau) -- http://www.foo.be/ -- http://pgp.ael.be:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x44E6CBCD -- "Knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance -- that we can solve them" Isaac Asimov
