Anthony Towns <[email protected]> > GFDL (relating to the "can't chmod a document" and "can't distribute a > transparent copy separately") -- it might be fair to be strict about that, > because we've been bitten by not being strict in the past on issues such > as the pine license, but otoh, there's been reported written affirmations > from Stallman that that's an incorrect interpretation, [...]
There have been claims of such affirmations, but a review of the amendement thread shows no references to support those claims. I know RMS wrote in 2003 that he *supposed* it didn't restrict encryption or file access control on all copies, but "that's a new one on me" and he'd ask a lawyer. Soon after, he refused to discuss FDL with us further. Where is RMS's claim about the interpretation of the anti-DRM phrases? I am mildly irritated that a GR can pass with only claims of evidence, rather than showing actual evidence. Smoke and mirrors. > If two weeks are enough to discuss major changes to the constitution, > three ought to be enough to discuss electing a new DPL? You're overrunning the campaign period, so apparently not! I'm not going to comment on the DPL-related questions now. It's vote time. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
