> From: Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If they were going to play the heavy with us, why would they bother > making all the other changes we asked for? What would be the point?
To give enough concessions to make a favourable GR more probable. > It's pretty clear that the Debian Project is not militantly united > against anti-TPM clauses. [...] Which is relevant how, except for snap GR votes? There is clearly a valid concern when licences start to dictate which media can be used for particular software. > > Can we try to make CC put this issue out to a general > > resolution? > > You can, if you want. I don't think that's Debian's place, though. How does one start a CC GR? > > > 1. Was GR 2006-01 an exception to the DFSG, or a clarification of > > > our principles? > > Neither. It was a single-point compromise interpretation. So, the other > > two questions asked are irrelevant. > > It's not clear to me what that means. Does that mean that the anti-TPM > clause in the FDL is compatible with the DFSG, or not? Yes, due to GR 2006-01. > > Thank you! I am not allowed to post to cc-licenses at this time. > > Why not? Because of cc-licenses-owner's or ibiblio's posting rules, as far as I can tell. > > I have discussed other aspects, including some downsides of TPM-bans, at > > http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/fc-uk-discuss/2006-August/001173.html > > which is a more public list than cc-, as far as I know. > > So, you're complaining to a third party? What good does that do? Maybe > it'd be better to make this more direct. It is a more public list than cc-licenses and its subscribers are relatively active, including some who attended the infamous iSummit. It would be better to be more direct, but I think CC so far has been a good example of how not to consult. Regards, -- 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]