Re: Interpreting the GFDL GR

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

Henning Makholm wrote:

> After going over the debate leading up to the vote, I think that the
> most honest and least polemic interpretation of the winning GR would
> be as follows:
<snip>

> Namely:
>     
>  b) When determining whether software is DFSG-free, the clauses
>     described by (a) shall not be interpreted according to their plain
>     English meaning. Instead we will form an conservative guess about
>     what the licensor is likely to have _intended_ by the clause. In
>     forming this guess we will employ extra-textual knowledge about
>     the licensor's policies and the circumstances of choosing or
>     drafting the license. We will then determine whether the
>     _intention_ of the licensor was to deny a licensee any rights
>     required by the DFSG.
This was my impression.

> In particular:
> 
>  c) The so-called "DRM" clause of the GFDL which literally reads
>  
>          You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control
>          the reading or further copying of the copies you make or
>          distribute.
> 
>     shall, for the purpose of the DFSG, be interpreted to mean
> 
>          You may not distribute copies in a form or under such
>          circumstances that the intended recipient cannot exercise the
>          rights given to him by this License without violating the
>          United States DMCA or similar laws existing elsewhere.

But see below.  :-(


>  d) When the GFDL requires a licensee to
> 
>          include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with
>          each Opaque copy
> 
>     we shall, for the purpose of the DFSG, assume that this
>     requirement is implicitly qualified by
> 
>          If distribution of Opaque copies is made by offering access
>          to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
>          access to copy the Transparent copy from the same place
>          counts as distribution of the Transparent copy, even though
>          third parties are not compelled to copy the Transparent copy
>          with the Opaque one.
> 
>     (I am not sure whether ftpmasters should apply this interpretation
>     when deciding whether they dare put binary packages containing
>     opaque copies of GFDL-licensed works on our ftp servers given the
>     current pool infrastructure. I would suggest not. However, that is
>     not directly a DFSG issue).

Actually this raises a crucial question.

This is all very well for the DFSG, but I just noticed that the DRM
restriction, read literally, prohibits placing copies on ftpmaster (since
access to those copies for most people is blocked by technical measures).

At least with the opaque-transparent business, the letter of the GFDL could
be satisfied by throwing a copy of the source file into the binary package
for every GFDL document.  The DRM problem cannot be escaped so easily --
except by allowing everyone in the world to download directly from
ftpmaster, which is obviously bad for technical reasons.

I do not think that the GR said that Debian should try to guess the
licensor's meaning when determining *distributability*.  That seems even
more dangerous.  Doing so when interpreting the DFSG simply opens up
Debian's users to liability if they ASSume that a package in main is free. 
But doing so when determining distributability opens up Debian to direct,
primary liability.

If that's what the developers meant, they should have said so.
I'm sorry I didn't notice this earlier, before the GRs; the "hmm, wait,
isn't ftpmaster download access restricted?" moment didn't come into my
head until today.

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@twcny.rr.com>

Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...