Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:28:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> If I use rcp to copy a work from one machine to another (both which are
> owned an exclusively used by me), this is making a copy but not
> distributing.
If someone sniffs your connection and obtains a copy of the document, then
distribution has taken place. But that is really beside the point.
> Now, if I were to do that from my local wireless hotspot, anyone else on
> the hotspot has access to that copy while it is being transmitted. I'd
> like to keep the document private, so instead I use scp. But wait ???
> encryption is a "technological measure to obstruct ... the reading or
> further copying of the copies [I] make." The people I am restricting
> from reading or further copying are my fellow wireless hotspot users.
Encryption, like file permissions, is an access control. In this case, you
are limiting access to those in possession of the decryption key(s).
Now, if your encryption scheme somehow inhibited people who you sent the file
to from making further copies, or forced them to pay you $1 every time
they read the document, *that* would violate the license.
> It seems you have read the GFDL to say:
>
> "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
> reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute BY
> THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S)."
>
> but that's not what it says, unfortunately. And if that is what it is
> intended to say, then why doesn't it? Its not like we didn't point this
> out to the FSF during the draft period. In addition, this effectively
> strikes the words "make or" leaving:
It doesn't need to say that. You don't need permission from the license to
control access to copies that are owned by you. Just like you don't need
permission to be able to put a hardcopy in a safe.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@debian.org> <adam@flounder.net>
Reply to: