Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
> - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording
> differently, as in "it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet
> the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main", for which a 1:1
> majority would be enough.
> All the relevant information about the
> invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I
> don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues,
> when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere,
> but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the
> Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.)
I just want to be clear on this.
This proposal, if adopted, is a statement by the developers that the "DRM
clause" and "Transparent Copies" clause, and any identical clauses stuck into
other licenses, are presumed DFSG-free. Right?
No comment or criticism was made in version 1 or 2 of this amendment on the
problems found with these clauses. The list of which were included verbatim
in version 1 of this amendment, and included bits such as:
(c) As written, it would outlaw actions like changing the permission
of a copy of the document on your machine, storing it on an
encrypted file system, distributing a copy over an encrypted
link (Obstruct or control the reading is not clarified to apply
merely to the recipient), or even storing it on a file-sharing
system with non-world-readable permission
So, does this mean that if this amendment is passed, outlawing storing a copy
of a document with non-world-readable permission is considered an acceptable,
free restriction by the Developers? Really?
I *hope* that this amendment is simply supposed to mean that the Developers
don't believe that the DRM clause imposes such restrictions (despite the fact
that reading it literally, it does). But at the moment, which of these two
positions is being pushed by the amendment is not clear to me. Adeodato?
Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
This space intentionally left blank.