> > I *hope* that this amendment is simply supposed to mean that the Developers > > don't believe that the DRM clause imposes such restrictions (despite the fact > > that reading it literally, it does). But at the moment, which of these two > > positions is being pushed by the amendment is not clear to me. Adeodato? > > The latter. From the last paragraph in my mail:
Thanks for replying on the public mailing list and making this clear to everyone including me. That eases my worries about this. Because it means that if a copyright holder actually does start talking about enforcing the GFDL on a work in a literalistic way which includes all the restrictions we find unacceptable, Debian *will* remove that work. Which is what really matters. :-) -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
