Oh bugger...

I discussed this in an earlier post (linked), and asked if an option like this was still wanted, and assumed that because there was no reply it wasn't. I guess perhaps I jumped the gun on that. In the light of my post, did you still want an option like this? I think there are some details that would have to be sorted out as to exactly how it would work before it could be added to the vote. Worst case, I guess the vote can be voided at the AGM?

Imo, this difference is small enough that it's up to the PC to interpret. If the options went into a lot more detail, maybe not, but these concepts are about broad strokes. The idea of that option is that there is a choice between DRM and copyright, and I don't think it tries to specify the mechanism by which one or the other is selected, though i guess if both options were there it would specify it. Just my thoughts.

I think the difference is significant, because in one case it would be the publisher that was penalised, and in the other case it would the author (or the potential copyright holder), and they may not be the same.

The result of the vote, which was announced at the conference, is that option C wins. C had a majority of at least 4 over every other option, out of 11 votes.

[C] allow circumvention of DRM, and require warnings where DRM is used

More later, when I can link to the minutes.

Here is the official summary of the results.

The winner was: [C] allow circumvention of DRM, and require warnings where DRM is used

Votes cast: 11 votes

The Condorcet (head-to-head) results can be summarised as follows:

• 1st: [C] allow circumvention of DRM, and require warnings where DRM is used
  (the above option beats every below option by at least 4 votes / 36%)
• 2nd: [B] allow circumvention of DRM
  (every above option beats every below option by at least 5 votes / 45%)
• 3rd=: [D] disallow DRM on copyrighted works
• 3rd=: [E] disallow DRM entirely
  (every above option beats the below option by at least 1 vote / 9%)
• 5th: [A] no policy on DRM

No options were classified as non-core policy, so no adjustments were necessary.

Condorcet (head-to-head) gives us a winner, so Schulze is not needed as a tie breaker.