On Fri, 2006-11-08 at 09:34 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> How does CC make decisions?  They know how we make decisions and seem
> to be hoping the debian project backs down when pushed to a general
> resolution.

If they were going to play the heavy with us, why would they bother
making all the other changes we asked for? What would be the point?

It's pretty clear that the Debian Project is not militantly united
against anti-TPM clauses. I'm not sure, if we have a GR on the matter,
whether this is "backing down" or not.

> Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general
> resolution?

You can, if you want. I don't think that's Debian's place, though.

> Who are CC's members?  I know some CC supporters who are
> sympathetic, but I don't think I've met any with established voting
> power yet.

Get those people to post on cc-licenses.

> >      1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of
> >         our principles?
> Neither.  It was a single-point compromise interpretation.  So, the other
> two questions asked are irrelevant.

It's not clear to me what that means. Does that mean that the anti-TPM
clause in the FDL is compatible with the DFSG, or not?

> [...]
> > I'd love to hear some opinions on the matter, and I'd be happy to
> > collect them and present them to Creative Commons. It's not clear how
> > long the public comments period is, so there is a time factor here.
> Thank you!  I am not allowed to post to cc-licenses at this time.

Why not?

> I have discussed other aspects, including some downsides of TPM-bans, at
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/fc-uk-discuss/2006-August/001173.html
> which is a more public list than cc-, as far as I know.

So, you're complaining to a third party? What good does that do? Maybe
it'd be better to make this more direct.


Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to