Anthony DeRobertis writes: > I believe there are essentially two reconciliations we can have for each > problem listed in the position statement [2]: Either "that does not make > things non-free" or "that is not the intended reading of the license, > stop nit-picking so much."
For the "DRM" restriction, I think that "that is not the intended reading of the license" applies. The FSF clearly did not intend to keep people from using chmod on a GFDL document, and did not intend other problems pointed out. The sloppy wording is not a danger, as no one is going to take legal action over such issues, and if they did, courts tend to interpret these things using reasonable standards, not like robots. It still would be advisable for the FSF to make the language clear. For the "Transparent and Opaque Copies" provision, I think Anthony is right on the FTP server question, and the other issues brought up in this section give reasons why the GFDL is sometimes a PITA, but just because the PITA provisions differ from those in the GPL don't necessarily put the provisions over the line; it's a judgment call, and the Debian developers have evidently made the judgment that the issue is tolerable. Remember, the words "This is a compromise" appear in the DFSG, despite the fact that the denizens of debian-legal resist compromise. That is, the necessity to make a written offer good for three years is sometimes painful, as is the necessity to keep a transparent copy available for one year. I did not understand why debian-legal found the latter provision a DFSG violation. I can understand why people don't like it, but evidently the Debian developers don't think it's worth throwing away most of the documentation over. PITA = pain in the ass, BTW -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
