> From: Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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?

To give enough concessions to make a favourable GR more probable.

> It's pretty clear that the Debian Project is not militantly united
> against anti-TPM clauses. [...]

Which is relevant how, except for snap GR votes?  There is clearly a 
valid concern when licences start to dictate which media can be used
for particular software.

> > 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.

How does one start a CC GR?

> > >      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?

Yes, due to GR 2006-01.

> > Thank you!  I am not allowed to post to cc-licenses at this time.
> Why not?

Because of cc-licenses-owner's or ibiblio's posting rules, as far
as I can tell.

> > 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.

It is a more public list than cc-licenses and its subscribers are
relatively active, including some who attended the infamous iSummit.

It would be better to be more direct, but I think CC so far has been a 
good example of how not to consult.

My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to