On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:11:07PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: > > Allow me to use your analogy[1] to look at an example of a behaviour > that I consider sane: > > $ echo ciao > /tmp/foo > $ chmod -w /tmp/foo > $ vim /tmp/foo > :w -> E45: 'readonly' option is set (add ! to override) > :w! -> "/tmp/foo" 2L, 11C written > Here is behavior that I consider to be equally sane: $ su - Password: # echo ciao >/tmp/foo # chmod -w /tmp/foo # exit logout $ vim /tmp/foo :w -> E45: 'readonly' option is set (add ! to override) :w! -> "/tmp/foo" E212: Can't open file for writing > This hints at the idea that those permissions that the user can change > are to be considered advisory, and those that the user cannot change are > to be considered mandatory. > On this we are in agreement. > We have also long come to the conclusion that enforcing laws (be they > questionable or not) is something that is the responsibility of the > users (or their sysadmins), and not of software alone. > So far we are talking about the technical measures themselves. If you talk about potential penalties for circumvention, then that might have to do with enforcing laws. In reality, what I am having trouble with is, how these two scenarios are different: 1. Someone produces a PDF with certain DRM restrictions. The user decides that he does not like the restrictions and so looks to circumvent them. 2. A user or sysadmin produces a file and removes certain access (read and/or write) for other users. The user decides that he does not like the restrictions and so looks to circumvent them. If people are arguing that Debian should assist the user in the first case, then why is the same not also true in the second case? I agree with Sune that such disagreements are best handled between the user and the producer of the file. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature