2 GPLv3 docs: DRM and Patents

[Bjoern Schiessle]

MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20060425/585b46f9/attachment.sig>