On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:14:27AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > Adam McKenna writes: > > > But if you haven't given the copies to anyone, you can't be trying to > > obstruct or control the reading or further copying done by anyone except > > yourself. > > > > I understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong. You are insisting > > on a basically insane literal interpretation of the license. > > As far as I know, debian-legal has never tried to interpret a license > contrary to what the text says just because someone thinks reading the > text in the most straightforward way is "basically insane". The usual > conclusion in such cases is that the license is in fact flawed.
The license is obviously flawed. But not flawed to the point of being non-free (at least, not due to the DRM clause). --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
