On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 02:31:48AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > We happen to have a clarification from one copyright holder (the FSF), > > Can you remind me where? I found RMS going to ask a lawyer in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg00212.html > but the not-for-debian comment wasn't very long after that.
I can't. Others have asserted that the FSF has clarified that they don't mean the DRM clause to prohibit file permissions, sending files with HTTPS (or Tor? or posting GPG-encrypted documentation on a public FTP and only giving one person the password?), or putting passwords on FTP servers; but that's just the FSF, not the general case, so I havn't tried to confirm it. (Note that people's assertions havn't necessarily been for each of those examples above, just some of them. They all seem like equally reasonable ways that I should be able to distribute a free work, all serving similar reasonable goals.) > It's delayed until after GPLv3. It seems that FSF won't run concurrent > consultations. See message from Chancellor of FSF Europe Chapter Italy: > http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2006-January/005448.html > FSF Europe seem very friendly, open and transparent, even when I disagree > with them about a topic. Blow-offs like "The development of GNU licenses is not a Debian issue" and their long-term refusal to respond to issues has given me a very different impression. It's irresponsible and damaging for those in the FSF's position to propagate a buggy license--for years!--without fixing it. The rationale doesn't change that, or lessen the resulting damage. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]