Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:05PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> [...]
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: [...]
> > > MJ quoted the EUCD's definition of "technological measure" and you
> > > have not explained why you think that should be ignored.
> >
> > I did, in the part of the e-mail you snipped.
>
> Yow! We should ignore recent copyright law?!? I strongly disagree with
> that. I don't like copyright law, but - like angry predator animals -
> it's dangerously negligent for us to ignore it totally.
We can ignore it for your chmod example, because chmod is not a techical
measure that controls copying. It's a technical measure that controls
access.
> I'm in disbelief that some seem willing to base licence interpretations
> on finding hidden "implicit" meanings[1].
I'm in disbelief that people participating on a board called "debian-legal"
would take one sentence from a license, read it without considering the
context or any of the the other text in the license, and declare it non-free.
Do you think that this is how courts work in real life?
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@debian.org> <adam@flounder.net>
Reply to: