Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:01:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
However, Option 1 was the consensus of this list, and thus we've been
overridden[0]. I feel that we now need to figure out why the project as
a whole has rejected the draft position statement [2] and render our
The GFDL has more serious problems than most licenses, and Debian has stuck
its rubber stamp on them; we're stuck with them, probably for good. I'm
sure any pretense from the FSF of trying to fix these problems will be
dropped entirely now, since Debian has said they're OK. The project has
asserted that onerous practical problems are acceptable.
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> lists some other problems found
on a quick reading, not all mentioned in the old position statement. Also,
any other problems found in the license can no longer be considered DFSG-
unfree, no matter how bad they are; this GR forces any such problems to be
contrived as free.
"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
or further copying of the copies you make or distribute" has been
mis-read. I don't think there is any way the Project would consider "you
must make all your files a+r, etc." a free license. I propose that the
Project is telling us that something along the following is the true
reading:
"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
reading or further copying [by the intended recipient] of [all] the
copies you make or distribute [to him]"
The Project can't say what the "true reading" is. Only the license and
the copyright holder can determine that. The Project has no power, by GR or
otherwise, to define the interpretation of someone else's license. This
GR also did not say "the GFDL is free, as long as this and that
interpretation of the license are held"; it makes no such qualification.
The Project is telling us that it's Free to prohibit encrypting a document,
since that's what a straightforward reading of the GFDL does. Even if the
FSF has clarified that it's not *their* intention, that's only partially
waiving the clause for only the FSF's works.
I don't think that the Debian project has decided that beacause I don't
agree that the license say that.
If there is a vote on a license the Debian project is obliged to read
it. When you say that Debian cannot determine the "true reading"; you
are saying that Debian is unable to read the license and in this
situation no vote is possible. If something is unclear when we read the
license Debian is obliged to read it on a way. What you say is that
Debian have to read the license litterally; but then Debian determine
that the "true reading" is to read it litterally.
By the way I believe that court will not read the license that way.
Usually court read the contract (or the license) as a whole and not like
robot.
I can put a document under the GFDL, and say "the 'technical measures'
clause is, in fact, intended to prohibit encrypting the document".
That's not bending or twisting the license; it's merely confirming a
straightforward interpretation.
If you say that, the document in question will not be under the DFSG
anymore. I don't agree that the straightforward interpretation say that.
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
