On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 18:15, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 07:09:18PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > > Specifically, would it be possible to > > 1) Allow storage/transmission on encrypted filesystems/links to > > counter the "DRM restriction"? > > 2) Not require forcing distribution of transparent copies with bulk > > opaque copies? > > > > If these clarifications were to be made, would the licence be > > considered DFSG-free? Are there any other possible amendments that > > could be made to make the licence DFSG-free? > > There are a few more clauses you need to waive (they're fairly boring > and pointless clauses; I can't imagine anybody caring about them being > removed). There's a list around here somewhere.
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml only lists those three. I've not read a more exhaustive treatment yet; if you have a reference in the -legal archives I'd like to see it. -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
