MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "It also includes any decryption codes necessary to access or > unseal the work's output. Notwithstanding this, a code need > not be included in cases where use of the work normally implies > the user already has it." > > Digital signature software like GnuPG might not be distributed > as signed binaries under GPLv3 unless the archive signing key > is included, by the looks of that, depending on what "unseal" > means in court. This still doesn't seem to fulfil RMS's purpose > stated in the doc. Looks like a drafting bug.
Why should a signing key have to be included? You can do with a signed GnuPG package what you want and install and run it on your machine so i wouldn't consider the output of a signed package as sealed. But IANAL and English isn't my native language. > These comments are made on discussion@ because I *still* can't > break into the comments system and my earlier bug reports on it > are still unclosed. If someone can forward these comments and get > around the refusal of FSF to support all browsers, I thank you. You can send your comments by email: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/email.html Cheers, Bjoern -- Bjoern Schiessle http://www.schiessle.org "Everybody is connected to everybody else, all data that can be shared will be shared, get used to it." -- Eben Moglen
pgpFryvReHs66.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
