Distributions quote of the week

It is a violation of the GFDL[1] to place GFDL-licensed material on any DRM-encumbered media, regardless of whether you actually distribute it or not.[2] Now, if the FSF wants to go around telling everyone that that constitutes a "free" license, that's their business. But the rest of us are under no obligation to agree with them.

Note also that the license offers no serious definition of DRM, simply using the phrase "technical measures to obstruct or control [...] reading or further copying." Under a completely literal reading, chmod o-r probably constitutes such a measure (although I would be a bit surprised if that was actually the FSF's intent).

[1]: See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html, section 2. There is an equivalent provision in version 1.1 of the license, also in section 2: https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/gforth/Docs-html/...
[2]: The license says you may "copy or distribute" the licensed material, subject to the no-DRM rule (which explicitly applies to "copies you make or distribute"). I could not find another provision of the license which separately authorizes unlimited private copying. Under standard copyright law, anything not expressly permitted in the license is forbidden, so you can't put a copy of a GFDL manual on any DRM-encumbered medium without violating the license, even for your own private use. In practice, I imagine that enforcement of this restriction is wildly impractical, but that's beside the point.