Re: Antique RC bugs (many about licensing)
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:31:26PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>
>>Is it really DFSG-free to have a license which prohibits placing a copy
>>you make of the document on an encrypted filesystem? Applying chmod o-r
>>to it (on a multiuser system)? Putting a copy of it in a safe?
>
>
> No, but I think that's an extreme (or absurd) interpretation of the
> GFDL. Don't some people consider those to be just bugs?
A license bug is nonetheless a bug -- a bug which can easily be abused
by the licensor to win damages and issue injunctions; or in this
country, where there's something called "criminal copyright
infringement", one which could be abused by a zealous prosecutor, even
without the consent of the licensor.
This is in a certain sense a security bug for the license: a bug which
allows the licensee (that's Debian and its users) to be totally screwed.
As opposed to a relatively harmless bug in the license, like GPL v.2's
requirement of a ChangeLog in every file (which could be provided if
demanded, but is annoying.)
We believe that *if* we have clarification from the licensor as to the
meaning, we can rely on their interpretation (this has a fairly sound
legal basis). But if we *don't*, which is unfortunately the case most
of the time, we have to read the license conservatively.
The GFDL, as a "general" license intended for use by many people, could
be interpreted differently by any of many different licensors. We don't
even know exactly what the FSF thinks this clause covers; we can't
pretend to know what Joe Licensor thinks it covers.
It would be perfectly reasonable for Joe Licensor to take a strict
reading; and to start enforcing it after years of delay, saying, "Well,
I assumed everyone knew that it meant what it said literally! I didn't
imagine anyone would interpret it so creatively!". I expect he'd win in
court.
> I don't know that you can reasonably combine a relaxed reading of the
> DFSG with a strict reading of the GFDL. Why be generous to one document
> and not the other?
One is a set of "guidelines" which Debian voluntarily adheres to.
The other is a legal document.
I think it's pretty easy to read the "guidelines" in a relaxed manner,
and read the legal document in a strict manner. After all, courts
routinely read legal documents in a strict manner, and their opinion is
what we have to think about when reading legal documents.
Ever tried to get a court to read a written contract in a "relaxed"
manner? Not very much chance of success, not in the US anyway.
> Cheers,
> Hamish
Reply to: