Re: FilterProxy and DFSG-compliancy?
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 02:13:12AM -0600, Bob McElrath wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman [mdz@debian.org] wrote:
> > Even if not, couldn't this be replaced by a statement similar to the
> > one you make above? Rather than stating that the user cannot do X or
> > Y, state that the user shall assume responsibility for their use of
> > the software.
>
> Well, that *is* the statement in the license:
> Any content modified by FilterProxy shall be considered to be the
> sole legal responsibility of the individual or corporation who runs
> FilterProxy. In no case shall any author of FilterProxy, or any
> author of a filtering component be held liable for copyright,
> patent, or other Intellectual Property law compliance of downloaded
> content.
Yes, but it also prohibitS certain specific actions that should fall under this
(reasonable) clause:
You may not use FilterProxy to modify the content downloaded by anyone
without their express knowledge and consent.
If such usage has already been declared the responsibility of the user, there
should be no legal problem with leaving this part out. I understand, though,
that the intent is probably to prevent users from using the software this way,
rather than to avoid being legally responsible yourself. While this seems like
a nice sentiment, it does infringe on the freedom of people to use the
software, and so it is in violation of my interpretation of the DFSG.
> > How is FilterProxy, in this case, any different than, say, a text editor?
> > Emacs doesn't have restrictions on its license stating that you cannot edit
> > and redistribute copyrighted works with it; that is covered by other law.
> > Isn't this also the case for web content?
>
> The distinction is that in using a proxy, the modification is automatic and
> transparent. Imagine that an ISP installs FilterProxy to transparently
> filter all content downloaded by its users. Then CNN (or some other website)
> takes offense at its content being modified (CNN's copyright being violated).
>
> While you can violate copyrights with a text editor just as easily, the text
> editor does not automatically transmit modified copies to hundreds of people.
> If it did, it might be argued that the software was at fault, and by
> extension, its author.
How is this different from having a caching proxy server like squid? While it
doesn't modify the content, it does store a copy of it and distribute it to a
(possibly very large) number of users. This content could be copyrighted such
that distribution is completely prohibited, but squid can't tell the
difference, and shouldn't have to. It is just carrying out the orders of its
operator and users, just as FilterProxy is.
> > Again, is it the job of FilterProxy's license to enforce this, when it is
> > already covered by the license of the original document? Never mind that
> > it's quite unreasonable for anyone to try to verify the copyright/licensing
> > status of a WWW document before viewing it.
>
> The idea is that FilterProxy could violate the licencing/copyright of a WWW
> document, via modification and redistribution. By making this the user's
> responsibility, I avoid having to worry about the copyright of every single
> HTML document on the web.
I don't think that putting this responsibilty on the user violates the DFSG. I
think that explicitly restricting what the user may do with the software,
however, does.
--
- mdz
Reply to: