Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

[Anthony DeRobertis <anthony@derobert.net>]

Glenn Maynard wrote:

>On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:01:19PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>  
>
>>I propose that the
>>Project is telling us that something along the following is the true
>>reading:
>>
>>    "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
>>    reading or further copying [by the intended recipient] of [all] the
>>    copies you make or distribute [to him]"
>>    
>>
>
>The Project can't say what the "true reading" is.  Only the license and
>the copyright holder can determine that.  The Project has no power, by GR or
>otherwise, to define the interpretation of someone else's license.
>  
>
I phrased that quite wrong; the Project certainly can't, as you state,
decide up the "true reading." The Project may, however, decide how /it/
reads the license. If the copyright holder were to inform us that our
reading is wrong, we'd use the copyright holder's reading, no matter how
silly (just like we did for Pine).

Of course, the final authority on the meaning of a license would be the
Supreme Court (at least in the US).

>This
>GR also did not say "the GFDL is free, as long as this and that
>interpretation of the license are held"; it makes no such qualification.
>  
>

The GR just says:

    At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU
    Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do
    fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

It does not say whether the interpretation of the DFSG or the
interpretation of the license is wrong; I suggest that means we are free
to pick, on a problem-by-problem basis, which one is wrong.

>I can put a document under the GFDL, and say "the 'technical measures'
>clause is, in fact, intended to prohibit encrypting the document".
>That's not bending or twisting the license; it's merely confirming a
>straightforward interpretation.
>
Sure. And we could decide that if you do that, we'll treat you just like
UW with respect to Pine.

[And yes, it is silly. But you're preaching to the choir, and unless you
plan to get the GR reversed, it really doesn't matter.]