Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:47:34PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Adam McKenna wrote:
> >Put simply, file permissions control access, not the ability to read
> >or copy. To be able to read or copy depends on having access, but it
> >is not equivalent to having access.
> If A depends on B then not doing/having B prevents A.
> If you are not allowed to prevent A, then you are thus not allowed to
> not do/not have B.
> The GFDL says you are not allowed to use technological measures to
> prevent reading the work. Reading the work requires having the +r file
> permission set (as you stated above). Thus, you must have the +r file
> permission set if file permissions are a technological measure.
> So, either file permissions are not a technological measure or the GFDL
> prohibits not giving read permission.
Computers are technological. If someone doesn't have a computer, they won't
be able to read the copy I give them. Does that mean that the GFDL obligates
me to buy everyone in the world a computer?
Obviously not. It does not even obligate me to make the copy available to
whoever wants it (indeed, according to the license, I can charge a fee for
providing a copy, and deny copies to those who are too poor to pay).
Access controls only control who has access to a copy. They don't control
who can make a copy. Only a current owner of a copy can make a copy.
Adam McKenna <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>