2 GPLv3 docs: DRM and Patents

[MJ Ray]

Bjoern Schiessle <schiessle at fsfe.org>
> MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > 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.  [...]
> 
> Why should a signing key have to be included? [...]

To unseal the signature block.  As posted, it depends what "unseal"
means in court.

> You can send your comments by email:
> http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/email.html

Have you got that to work?  I didn't.

GPLv3 seems almost a case study in how not to run a
consultation, with a some-browsers-denied comments system feeding
corporation-heavy committees whose discussions are mostly secret
and memberships only published belatedly.  It marginalises and
disempowers regular hackers and encourages us to move away from
using FSF licences for our work.

Then again, I had an email today from gov.uk explaining that they
have removed the unified list of consultations because making
voters visit every damn site in gov.uk is more efficient(!)
At least fsf.org isn't doing anything that bad yet...
-- 
MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/  irc.oftc.net/slef  Jabber/SIP ask