MJ Ray wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] > If you think it's a bad idea for another reason, then fine, but "room > for mischief" applies to almost all licences. Ultimately, whether > work is Free and Open with a capital F O is how it's actually handled > in practice.
By "room for mischief" I mean "the ability to hand people restricted work in practice". I mentioned the burden on redistributors as well. Work may be Free Upstream, but it's important that it is Free On Actual Delivery as well. > As long as Parallel Distribution as specified will stand up as a > requirement if challenged, that's not a problem in itself IMO - it > seems a good way to make DRM copies more expensive and more cumbersome > and so discourage it. It actually makes transparent (sic) copies more expensive and more cumbersome from the point of view of the DRM-enamoured. Having the simple requirement that work be unencumbered sidesteps all this. - Rob. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
