Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Glenn Maynard wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:31:04PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >>> So the GR promotes a "do what I mean, not what I say" approach to >>> license interpretation for the GFDL -- it does *not* claim that the >>> literal reading of the DRM restriction is free. >> But GRs don't get to say what licenses mean. Right. >>> trouble, but it seems to be the preferred choice of the developers. >>> At least Debian still believes in removing stuff without free licenses >>> from Debian if the licensors decide to actually enforce their licenses >>> as written. >> ... but at that point, it's too late. Debian and/or its users may already >> be liable. Such a claim by a licensor would not be a guaranteed victory, >> of course, but it does feel like Debian would genuinely be in the wrong. > > Well, at least Debian and/or its users would only be liable for past > uses. :-P Normally copyright holders send cease-and-desist letters before > making claims. So I guess it's fairly unlikely that anyone would actually > sue or file charge without sending one first. > > But I agree with you, it feels very much like Debian and/or its users would > be in the wrong. > > I think it would be Debian in the GFDL case, because the copies stored on > ftpmaster are rendered inaccessible to the general public, by means of > technical measures. Only the copies of those copies on the mirrors are > accessible. > > Actually, I'm surprised I didn't notice that before -- GFDL documents can't > be legally distributed by Debian if you actually read what the license > says. They're *undistributable*. Agreed. There's absolutely nothing stopping developers from saying "OK, fine, by the GR it's DFSG-free, whatever that means now; we still have no legal right to distribute it unless we change our modes of distribution to not violate the license". - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature