Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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. [...]
What do you base that clear intention on? I thought RMS ultimately refused to discuss the implications of the anti-DRM with us when asked. -- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00825.html > For the "Transparent and Opaque Copies" provision, > [...] I did not understand why debian-legal found > the latter provision a DFSG violation. [...] I wasn't aware that we had, outside of limited situations where no Transparent Copy of the work exists. What do you mean? Mostly, that clause is a PITA and a practical problem for the archive network AIUI. > Remember, the words "This is a compromise" appear in the DFSG, despite > the fact that the denizens of debian-legal resist compromise. That is your opinion or interpretation, not a fact. Many posters spend a lot of time searching for "everyone wins" compromises. For the FDL, I feel the best "everyone wins" is a new version. Hoping for answers, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
