"Ben Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Music in digital form, being digitially-stored information, *is*
> software :-) As Eben Moglen said, it's foolish to try to
> distinguish different freedoms for a bitstream depending on how
> those bits happen to be interpreted at some point in time.
That sounds like an argument against the GFDL licence.
I am convinced that it is, yes.
IF Eben Moglen really belived that, why did he allow rms to create
that license?
That presumes that Eben was in any position to "allow" RMS to do
anything. In any case, you'd have to ask him.
My understanding is that as of the time of the drafting of the GFDL, Eben
was the primary lawyer at the FSF.
Now, I find it hard to belive that rms would actually publish a license that
has not been approved by the FSF lawyers,
and Eben would have been in a position to convince rms that this was a bad
idea.
Of course, if Eben came to the above conclusion after the FSF published the
GFDL, that would explain things.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
