Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:48:20PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> >
> >> > If you do "chmod -r" then I am unable to read the file and there
> >> > exists no reading to control.
> >> Come on. If the directory is world (or just group) readable, there *is*
> >> in fact something to read. Simply defining that every copy that cannot
> >> be read is not there, and therefore not letting others read it is okay,
> >> is just ridiculous.
> > The copy _is_ there but there exists no reading, so there is nothing
> > to control. I mean there is no reading of the copy, the directory can
> > be read but it is obviously not covered by GFDL.
> With that reasoning, I would be allowed to make as many copies of my
> WindowsXP CD's as my CD burner manages before it blows up in smoke, as
> long as I don't let anybody else read them. I repeat: Claiming that a
> copy doesn't matter just because you can't read it, and doing this when
> discussing the specific clause that forbids to obstruct other's reading
> of the copy, is just ridiculous.
I don't say the copy doesn't matter. I say that there is no process
of reading the copy. Do I control your reading of the image on my
videomonitor? Maybe I control you, but not your reading, because
there is no reading at all. And yet my videomonitor is very real.