Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Read in English, naturally by a native speaker, the license clearly >> applies restrictions against "chmod", etc, and the above >> interpretation does not come from the license. > > I agree on both counts. Yet rather than taking the GR to mean that > restrictions against chmod are OK in general, I think the GR says that > the GFDL should not be taken to imply restrictions against chmod. If > that leads to using an interpretaion that does not come from the > license, then so be it - it's a lesser evil than deciding that free > software does not need to be chmodable.
For what it's worth, I voted for Amendment B over the original text because I am convinced that no court (at least in my legislation, I have not much knowledge of others) would rule that someone has violated the license because of chmod or similar - simply because it is the normal state in the computer world, even on Windows systems, that stuff is not-world readable. Or in other words because this restriction would make the whole license void, and that can't be what the licensor intended. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)