From zak at greant.com Tue Aug 1 13:10:24 2006 From: zak at greant.com (Zak Greant) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:10:24 -0700 Subject: [Committee-d] Reminder: meeting tomorrow In-Reply-To: <1154396316.23035.59.camel@shepard> References: <1154396316.23035.59.camel@shepard> Message-ID: <43984209-9613-4577-B9C2-639EFA58AE46@greant.com> On Jul 31, 2006, at 18:38PDT (CA), David Turner wrote: > Let's talk at 2200 UTC about Draft 2. I haven't yet given it a detailed review. :( -- Cheers! --zak From novalis at fsf.org Tue Aug 1 13:09:56 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:09:56 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Reminder: meeting tomorrow In-Reply-To: <43984209-9613-4577-B9C2-639EFA58AE46@greant.com> References: <1154396316.23035.59.camel@shepard> <43984209-9613-4577-B9C2-639EFA58AE46@greant.com> Message-ID: <1154452196.23035.110.camel@shepard> On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 10:10 -0700, Zak Greant wrote: > On Jul 31, 2006, at 18:38PDT (CA), David Turner wrote: > > > Let's talk at 2200 UTC about Draft 2. > > I haven't yet given it a detailed review. :( I would highly recommend reading the comments on the marked-up draft. Even comments on one small section (CCSC, DRM, and Affero) would be useful. -- -David Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Free Software Foundation From novalis at fsf.org Tue Aug 1 17:46:54 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:46:54 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting now Message-ID: <1154468814.23035.151.camel@shepard> Get it while it's hot: freenode, #committeed, right now. -- -David Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Free Software Foundation From zak at greant.com Tue Aug 1 21:36:57 2006 From: zak at greant.com (Zak Greant) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 18:36:57 -0700 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting now In-Reply-To: <1154468814.23035.151.camel@shepard> References: <1154468814.23035.151.camel@shepard> Message-ID: On Aug 1, 2006, at 14:46PDT (CA), David Turner wrote: > Get it while it's hot: freenode, #committeed, right now. Sorry to have missed it! -- Cheers! --zak From jbsoufron at gmail.com Wed Aug 2 03:09:47 2006 From: jbsoufron at gmail.com (Jean-Baptiste Soufron) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 09:09:47 +0200 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting now In-Reply-To: References: <1154468814.23035.151.camel@shepard> Message-ID: <7B1726A1-F233-449E-8C6E-CAAA33C9AEA1@gmail.com> idem :( Jean-Baptiste Soufron cersa-cnrs paris 2 http://soufron.typhon.net +33 (0) 617 962 457 Le 2 ao?t 06 ? 03:36, Zak Greant a ?crit : > > On Aug 1, 2006, at 14:46PDT (CA), David Turner wrote: > >> Get it while it's hot: freenode, #committeed, right now. > > Sorry to have missed it! > > -- > Cheers! > --zak > > > _______________________________________________ > Committee-D mailing list > Committee-D at gplv3.fsf.org > http://gplv3.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/committee-d From novalis at fsf.org Wed Aug 2 17:12:27 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:12:27 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Minutes from yesterday's meeting Message-ID: <1154553147.23035.199.camel@shepard> Here are some notes from yesterday's meeting. There's still plenty to discuss next week -- the new anti-DRM sections, etc. Attendees Mako Hill Seth Schoen David Rickerby [David Turner] Don Armstrong [Richard Fontana] Masayuki Hatta On section 7(d)(4): Everyone wants the last four words gone. Other than that, the new text is a great improvement. There is still a concern that it might allow non-free terms to sneak in. Specifically, retaining the freedom to modify the means (if not the ends) seems important to Mako and Don. One fix (contemplated for draft-2, but perhaps not adequately advocated) is to make 7d4 reference section 6. Mako and Don will write this up as a comment (issue), which hopefully will cause changes in Draft 3. Discussion of 6b1: is it really necessary? Is it a bad thing? Don points out that it does make things slightly harder for people with no net access if there is no service like on-disk.com. Mako notes that at most 1 person of millions of CD distributees used the Ubuntu offer; the rest just downloaded code. Masayuki Hatta will be at the 4th conference in Bangalore. -- -David Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Free Software Foundation From fontana at softwarefreedom.org Thu Aug 3 10:53:44 2006 From: fontana at softwarefreedom.org (Richard Fontana) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:53:44 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] GPLv3 Draft 2 Opinions available Message-ID: <44D20DF8.1050604@softwarefreedom.org> The opinions referred to in the rationale document for Draft 2 of GPLv3 are now posted: http://gplv3.fsf.org/opinions-draft-2.html The opinions provide further explanation on certain issues. The rationale document itself is available at: http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd1to2-markup-rationale.pdf http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd1to2-markup-rationale.ps http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd1to2-markup-rationale.tex -- Richard E. Fontana Counsel Software Freedom Law Center tel. 212-461-1909 fax 212-580-0898 From novalis at fsf.org Thu Aug 3 17:17:08 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:17:08 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Join a subcommittee on DRM Message-ID: <1154639828.30780.24.camel@shepard> McCoy Smith of Committee B writes: Andy Wilson & I (both from Intel) volunteered to lead a subgroup discussion of issues with the concept of "Technical Barriers to Modification/Protected Boot/'DRM'." The relevant section in this regard in current draft are Section 1 (particularly the second paragraph in the definition of "Complete Corresponding Source") but also Section 3. The primary focus here will be with particular technical usage cases that might cause unintentional (or perhaps intentional, but undesirable) conflicts with this language, but we should also focus on the "legal conflicts" that are also created by this section (DCMA is particularly spelled out, but we should also consider other legal conflicts like FCC, FDA, etc. regulations and associated laws). Please e-mail me if you wish to participate in this discussion subgroup. --- He also invited people from other discussion committees to join the discussion. If anyone has any particular interest in DRM, please feel free to email McCoy to join in. Of course, regardless of what other committees do, the mighty Committee D will be discussing DRM and related issues on its own. -- -David Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Free Software Foundation From novalis at fsf.org Thu Aug 3 17:17:08 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:17:08 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Join a subcommittee on DRM Message-ID: <1154639828.30780.24.camel@shepard> McCoy Smith of Committee B writes: Andy Wilson & I (both from Intel) volunteered to lead a subgroup discussion of issues with the concept of "Technical Barriers to Modification/Protected Boot/'DRM'." The relevant section in this regard in current draft are Section 1 (particularly the second paragraph in the definition of "Complete Corresponding Source") but also Section 3. The primary focus here will be with particular technical usage cases that might cause unintentional (or perhaps intentional, but undesirable) conflicts with this language, but we should also focus on the "legal conflicts" that are also created by this section (DCMA is particularly spelled out, but we should also consider other legal conflicts like FCC, FDA, etc. regulations and associated laws). Please e-mail me if you wish to participate in this discussion subgroup. --- He also invited people from other discussion committees to join the discussion. If anyone has any particular interest in DRM, please feel free to email McCoy to join in. Of course, regardless of what other committees do, the mighty Committee D will be discussing DRM and related issues on its own. -- -David Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Free Software Foundation From novalis at fsf.org Tue Aug 8 12:25:56 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 12:25:56 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting today Message-ID: <1155054356.12663.0.camel@shepard> There's a meeting today at 2200 UTC. See you on IRC! -- -David Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Free Software Foundation From novalis at fsf.org Tue Aug 8 17:49:41 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:49:41 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting now Message-ID: <1155073781.12663.59.camel@shepard> Join us on IRC. -- -David Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Free Software Foundation From novalis at fsf.org Thu Aug 10 11:35:16 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:35:16 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Anti-TC Message-ID: <1155224116.12663.210.camel@shepard> In our meeting Tuesday, Seth pointed out some of the problems with trying to stop the creation of GPL-software-based systems that can remote-attest generally. I agree that this is impossible. I don't think the goal of GPLv3 is to do this. If individual people want to set up their systems this way, they're free to do so. The problem is when such a scheme is imposed on people. So, the goal of GPLv3 is to stop the distribution of such systems when they involve GPL software. Does the current draft do this correctly? If not, how can we write something that says what we want it to say? -- -David Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Free Software Foundation From novalis at fsf.org Tue Aug 15 14:09:42 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:09:42 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting today 2200 Message-ID: <1155665382.5512.13.camel@shepard> Another IRC meeting today at 2200 UTC. -- -David Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Free Software Foundation From novalis at fsf.org Tue Aug 15 17:51:23 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:51:23 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting now Message-ID: <1155678684.5512.61.camel@shepard> Come join me! -- -David Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Free Software Foundation From novalis at fsf.org Tue Aug 15 18:09:29 2006 From: novalis at fsf.org (David Turner) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:09:29 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting times? Message-ID: <1155679769.5512.71.camel@shepard> Is there a better time for meetings? Please discuss amongst yourselves, and pick a time that people are likely to show up for. I will be on vacation for the next few weeks; you are free to meet without me at a time of your choosing. Richard Fontana or Brett Smith will be there.. If phone meetings are more convenient, they can be arranged. We have the technology. [brett, if you're not already on this list, please get on it] -- -David Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Free Software Foundation From don at donarmstrong.com Tue Aug 15 19:49:29 2006 From: don at donarmstrong.com (Don Armstrong) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:49:29 -0700 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting times? In-Reply-To: <1155679769.5512.71.camel@shepard> References: <1155679769.5512.71.camel@shepard> Message-ID: <20060815234929.GN13196@volo.donarmstrong.com> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, David Turner wrote: > Is there a better time for meetings? Please discuss amongst > yourselves, and pick a time that people are likely to show up for. I > will be on vacation for the next few weeks; you are free to meet > without me at a time of your choosing. Richard Fontana or Brett > Smith will be there.. If phone meetings are more convenient, they > can be arranged. We have the technology. I appologize; I was off trying to write the slides for a talk I have to give in a few hours... that time is the best for me, I just couldn't make it this time. Don Armstrong -- You could say she lived on the edge... Well, maybe not exactly on the edge, just close enough to watch other people fall off. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch8.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu From fontana at softwarefreedom.org Wed Aug 16 13:55:36 2006 From: fontana at softwarefreedom.org (Richard Fontana) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:55:36 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting times? In-Reply-To: <1155679769.5512.71.camel@shepard> References: <1155679769.5512.71.camel@shepard> Message-ID: <44E35C18.1020008@softwarefreedom.org> David Turner wrote: > Is there a better time for meetings? Please discuss amongst yourselves, > and pick a time that people are likely to show up for. I will be on > vacation for the next few weeks; you are free to meet without me at a > time of your choosing. Richard Fontana or Brett Smith will be there.. > If phone meetings are more convenient, they can be arranged. We have > the technology. My own very EDT-centric preference would be a somewhat earlier time, but if 2200 UTC is best for this committee then that's what it ought to be. -- Richard E. Fontana Counsel Software Freedom Law Center tel. 212-461-1909 fax 212-580-0898 From DRickerby at choate.com Wed Aug 16 16:38:57 2006 From: DRickerby at choate.com (Rickerby, David G.) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:38:57 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting times? Message-ID: <8FA1A1183C932643BC3B0E08814DC225DFAECF@EXCHMAILV1.chs.choate.com> Sorry, I was on the road returning from a client. 5 or 6 PM EDT work well for me when I am around. Unfortunately, sometimes that is hard to predict. David G. Rickerby Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP Two International Place Boston, MA 02110 +1 617.248.5094 (office) +1 617.285.7595 (mobile) +1 617.248.4000 (fax) +1 617.381.4944 (home office) +44 (0) 20.8133.5094 (UK) +1 415.578.4509 (California) drickerby at choate.com skype:drickerby www.choate.com -----Original Message----- From: committee-d-bounces at gplv3.fsf.org [mailto:committee-d-bounces at gplv3.fsf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:56 PM To: committee-d at gplv3.fsf.org Cc: brett at gnu.org Subject: Re: [Committee-d] Meeting times? David Turner wrote: > Is there a better time for meetings? Please discuss amongst yourselves, > and pick a time that people are likely to show up for. I will be on > vacation for the next few weeks; you are free to meet without me at a > time of your choosing. Richard Fontana or Brett Smith will be there.. > If phone meetings are more convenient, they can be arranged. We have > the technology. My own very EDT-centric preference would be a somewhat earlier time, but if 2200 UTC is best for this committee then that's what it ought to be. -- Richard E. Fontana Counsel Software Freedom Law Center tel. 212-461-1909 fax 212-580-0898 _______________________________________________ Committee-D mailing list Committee-D at gplv3.fsf.org http://gplv3.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/committee-d **************************************************************************** This Message is transmitted to you by the law firm of Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP. The substance of this message, along with any attachments, may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the designated recipient of this message, please destroy it and notify the sender of the error by return e-mail or by calling 1-800-520-2427. Under regulations of the Treasury Department, we are required to include the following statement in this message: Any advice contained herein (or in any attachment hereto) regarding federal tax matters was not intended or written by the sender to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. For more information about Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP, please visit us at choate.com **************************************************************************** From zak at greant.com Wed Aug 16 21:29:38 2006 From: zak at greant.com (Zak Greant) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:29:38 -0700 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting times? In-Reply-To: <8FA1A1183C932643BC3B0E08814DC225DFAECF@EXCHMAILV1.chs.choate.com> References: <8FA1A1183C932643BC3B0E08814DC225DFAECF@EXCHMAILV1.chs.choate.com> Message-ID: The time works well for me - I just had emergencies crop up during meeting times over the last few weeks. Cheers! --zak From mako at debian.org Sat Aug 19 13:26:27 2006 From: mako at debian.org (Benj. Mako Hill) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:26:27 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting times? In-Reply-To: <1155679769.5512.71.camel@shepard> References: <1155679769.5512.71.camel@shepard> Message-ID: <20060819172627.GG23829@yukidoke.org> > Is there a better time for meetings? The time really does work for me in the vast majority of situations. Last week was crazy but I'll be able to make it next week if we keep to the same time. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill mako at debian.org http://mako.cc/ From mhatta at grad.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp Sat Aug 19 22:37:10 2006 From: mhatta at grad.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Masayuki Hatta) Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 11:37:10 +0900 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting times? In-Reply-To: <1155679769.5512.71.camel@shepard> References: <1155679769.5512.71.camel@shepard> Message-ID: <20060820023816.52CBC322725@marx.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Hi, >>>>> In <1155679769.5512.71.camel at shepard> >>>>> David Turner wrote: > Is there a better time for meetings? Please discuss amongst > yourselves, and pick a time that people are likely to show up for. > I will be on vacation for the next few weeks; you are free to meet > without me at a time of your choosing. Richard Fontana or Brett > Smith will be there.. If phone meetings are more convenient, they > can be arranged. We have the technology. I had to go to Kyoto last week, so I couldn't attend the last one. And next week, I'll be in Bangalore. I am not sure I will have a decent internet connection, so I might not be able to attend the next meeting anyway. Generally speaking, the meeting time works for me -- well, I can say AM6 in JST is kinda wee hours (I am not really an earlybird ;-), but is still acceptable if you could bear my occasional oversleep. Best, MH -- Masayuki Hatta Graduate School of Economics, The University of Tokyo From fontana at softwarefreedom.org Tue Aug 22 11:59:50 2006 From: fontana at softwarefreedom.org (Richard Fontana) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:59:50 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Committee D meeting today (Aug 22) 2200 UTC Message-ID: <44EB29F6.8060802@softwarefreedom.org> There is an IRC meeting for Committee D today at 2200 UTC / 6pm EDT / 3pm PDT. -- Richard E. Fontana Counsel Software Freedom Law Center tel. 212-461-1909 fax 212-580-0898 From fontana at softwarefreedom.org Tue Aug 22 18:03:35 2006 From: fontana at softwarefreedom.org (Richard Fontana) Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:03:35 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Committee D meeting now In-Reply-To: <44EB29F6.8060802@softwarefreedom.org> References: <44EB29F6.8060802@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <44EB7F37.2010607@softwarefreedom.org> We are meeting now on freenode. -- Richard E. Fontana Counsel Software Freedom Law Center tel. 212-461-1909 fax 212-580-0898 From fontana at softwarefreedom.org Tue Aug 29 15:55:11 2006 From: fontana at softwarefreedom.org (Richard Fontana) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:55:11 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Committee D meeting today (Aug 29) 2200 UTC In-Reply-To: <44EB29F6.8060802@softwarefreedom.org> References: <44EB29F6.8060802@softwarefreedom.org> Message-ID: <44F49B9F.5050405@softwarefreedom.org> There is an IRC meeting for Committee D today at 2200 UTC / 6pm EDT / 3pm PDT. -- Richard E. Fontana Counsel Software Freedom Law Center tel. 212-461-1909 fax 212-580-0898 From brett at gnu.org Wed Aug 30 12:08:15 2006 From: brett at gnu.org (Brett Smith) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:08:15 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] System libraries exception and unpopular languages Message-ID: <20060830160815.GL17186@fencepost> The current draft of GPLv3 says that the Corresponding Source need not include the source code for System Libraries, which are defined thus: The "System Libraries" of an executable work include every subunit such that (a) the identical subunit is normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the object code runs, or a compiler used to produce the object code, or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. There is some concern about the part that requires that the code "implement a widely used or standard interface." This language is meant to include different programming languages standard libraries. However, it's not clear that it works for unpopular languages. Here's an example Dave gave. (He wrote this before the second draft was released, so it uses some old language.) The problem is that nobody uses Smalltalk, so the interface isn't "widely used", and the standard doesn't specify enough, so the interface isn't "standard". So the Smalltalk standard libraries don't fall under the major components exception (note: as soon as draft2 is released, I'll use the draft2 term instead). It could be understood that "widely used" means "widely used by programmers of a given language," but if that's the case, it should probably say so. So Dave proposed the following solution: So, I propose changing it [the language in the exception] to "a Standard Interface," and defining a Standard Interface as "an interface that is a de jure standard (ANSI, ISO, ECMA, etc) or is used by a majority of developers working in the programming language". It doesn't have to be this precise language, of course, but something to include that the class libraries of even unpopular languages would be good. We discussed this proposal during the meeting last night. Generally we liked it (Mako and I did, at least), but were concerned that it could be exploited to avoid the GPL's obligations. For example, consider Rattlesnake, a hypothetical language that's just Python with some patches to add a case statement, and a number of additions to the standard library that all have proprietary implementations. Someone who writes Rattlesnake can modify GPLed Python programs to make use of its "value-added" standard libraries, and can honestly claim that those libraries are used by a majority of developers working in the programming language -- since they're the only user and they're using the libraries in question. Obviously pulling this stunt takes some effort. But it could be worth it if you're interested enough in using GPL-incompatible libraries to modify a GPLed program. It's not *that* hard to do. We discussed possible ways of avoiding this problem last night, and didn't come to any final conclusions. Now that I'm writing this e-mail, I see that we may have a solution in the current draft's language, by requiring that the source for an implementation be available to the public. So, the language could look like this: 1. Source Code. The "source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. "Object code" means any non-source version of a work. A "Standard Interface" means an interface that is either a de jure standard (defined by a widely recognized standards body such as ANSI, ISO, or ECMA) or used by a majority of developers working in the programming language, for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. The "System Libraries" of an executable work include every subunit such that (a) the identical subunit is normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the object code runs, or a compiler used to produce the object code, or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to implement a Standard Interface. [This paragraph is unchanged, but inclued here for your reference:] The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, except its System Libraries, and except general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes scripts used to control those activities, interface definition files associated with the program source files, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by complex data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work. [... and so on...] Here are my immediate concerns with this: * Should source be required in the case of a de jure standard, a de facto standard, or both? (I think both.) Whatever we decide, is it possible to make this clearer in the language? * Is it okay to talk about a "widely recognized standard body?" My biggest concern here is that proprietary software developers may have their own standards bodies which they care about a lot but I've never even heard of. Even if they exist, though, so long as we require that a source implementation be available for de jure standards, the worst they can do is cause less source to be distributed. Also, this definition may not include groups like the Web Standards Project or Web Standards Group; that may be unfortunate, but all it does is require that more source be distributed with programs, which doesn't seem like a big deal to me. However, I think this proposal both (a) allows in the standard libraries of unpopular languages, and (b) avoids exploitation through the creation of vanity languages. Your thoughts? -- Brett Smith Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation From fontana at softwarefreedom.org Wed Aug 30 19:51:17 2006 From: fontana at softwarefreedom.org (Richard Fontana) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:51:17 -0400 Subject: [Committee-d] Commenting queue for Committee D Message-ID: <44F62475.6040003@softwarefreedom.org> Committee D members now have their own comment queue, which means that you can submit comments using the interface at http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/gplv3-draft-2.html that will be viewable only by members of Committee D. (You can, of course, continue to also submit publicly-viewable comments.) Let me know if you have any questions. -- Richard E. Fontana Counsel Software Freedom Law Center tel. 212-461-1909 fax 212-580-0898 From mako at atdot.cc Sat Aug 19 13:17:49 2006 From: mako at atdot.cc (Benj. Mako Hill) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:17:49 -0000 Subject: [Committee-d] Meeting times? In-Reply-To: <1155679769.5512.71.camel@shepard> References: <1155679769.5512.71.camel@shepard> Message-ID: <20060819171717.GE22097@yukidoke.org> > Is there a better time for meetings? The time really does work for me in the vast majority of situations. Last week was crazy but I'll be able to make it next week if we keep to the same time. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill mako at atdot.cc http://mako.cc/