Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/21/06, MJ Ray <email@example.com> wrote:
> In any case: if we interpret the FDL with the legal definition,
> FDL'd works fail DFSG; if we interpret the FDL with your
> bizarre literal definition, FDL'd works fail DFSG. A null diff.
Please spell out your reasoning here.
(1) I don't think my definition is at all bizarre.
(2) I don't think that GFDL'd works fail DFSG in this
(3) I don't see that the GFDL prohibits the use of mechanisms
such as chmod unless they are used in very narrow specific
contexts which have very little to do with any likely situation
or any normal use.
For example, taking some GFDL'd documentation, embedding
it in an executable, then making it available to users of a
multi-user system with read and write permissions disabled
(and only granting execute permissions) would constitute a
violation of the GFDL if additional steps were not also taken
to keep this legal (for example: granting users access to a debian
But so what? We don't require that we protect users from ever
doing something bad. People could just as severely violate
copyright by combining software from two packages with
incompatible licenses and giving the users of a multi-user system
access to the result.
> > During the normal course of execution of a program, you
> > need to make numerous copies of a program. One for
> > memory, one for swap, one for L2 cache, numerous
> > small ones for L1 cache, ...
> > But this seems to be outside the scope of the disputed
> > sentence in the GFDL -- control of these copies seems
> > to make no sense because the control involved is not
> > legal control and does not involve copy rights. At least,
> > the GFDL makes no specific requirements about how
> > the document is transcribed to L2 cache.
> Are you saying that such copying to L2 cache is not covered
> by copyright law? At least in England, I'm sure that's false
> and it's covered by s50C of the 1988 Act as amended. If the
> licence explicitly prohibits such copying, then 50C supports it:
I'm not saying that in the general case.
In the specific case, I'm saying that such copying to L2 cache is not
covered by the GFDL. The GFDL does not specifically prohibit such
It's interesting that the U.K. will remove permissions that are present
without any explicit permission when explicit permission is granted,
and I'm sure there's interesting philosophical aspects to that issue.
However, this quirk does not apply in the context of the GFDL
so I don't see that it's relevant here.