Matt Zimmerman [mdz@debian.org] wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 02:13:12AM -0600, Bob McElrath wrote: > > > Matt Zimmerman [mdz@debian.org] wrote: > > > Even if not, couldn't this be replaced by a statement similar to the > > > one you make above? Rather than stating that the user cannot do X or > > > Y, state that the user shall assume responsibility for their use of > > > the software. > > > > Well, that *is* the statement in the license: > > Any content modified by FilterProxy shall be considered to be the > > sole legal responsibility of the individual or corporation who runs > > FilterProxy. In no case shall any author of FilterProxy, or any > > author of a filtering component be held liable for copyright, > > patent, or other Intellectual Property law compliance of downloaded > > content. > > Yes, but it also prohibitS certain specific actions that should fall under this > (reasonable) clause: > > You may not use FilterProxy to modify the content downloaded by anyone > without their express knowledge and consent. > > If such usage has already been declared the responsibility of the user, there > should be no legal problem with leaving this part out. I understand, though, > that the intent is probably to prevent users from using the software this way, > rather than to avoid being legally responsible yourself. Yes. > While this seems like a nice sentiment, it does infringe on the > freedom of people to use the software, and so it is in violation of my > interpretation of the DFSG. Agreed. Freedom is amore complex issue than just getting software and using it as you please. The actions of the UAE and similar countries cannot be considered "freedom" by any stretch of the word. FilterProxy could be used to restrict the actions of citizens in the UAE, and thus, violate people's freedom. (the freedom from propeganda, mostly, to know that what you have obtained is the original, and hasn't been "modified" for someone else's nefarious purposes) > How is this different from having a caching proxy server like squid? While it > doesn't modify the content, it does store a copy of it and distribute it to a > (possibly very large) number of users. This content could be copyrighted such > that distribution is completely prohibited, but squid can't tell the > difference, and shouldn't have to. It is just carrying out the orders of its > operator and users, just as FilterProxy is. It is no different. If squid cached modified documents, the situation would be identical. If I'm not mistaken, some current legislation (DMCA?) can be applied to caching proxies in this way. The legislation on copyright/ip issues is frakly appalling, and in need of serious overhaul, IMHO. Current legislation does not make distinction between "copy" and "temporary copy made by a program during its normal operation". Both can be infringing. > > > Again, is it the job of FilterProxy's license to enforce this, when it is > > > already covered by the license of the original document? Never mind that > > > it's quite unreasonable for anyone to try to verify the copyright/licensing > > > status of a WWW document before viewing it. > > > > The idea is that FilterProxy could violate the licencing/copyright of a WWW > > document, via modification and redistribution. By making this the user's > > responsibility, I avoid having to worry about the copyright of every single > > HTML document on the web. > > I don't think that putting this responsibilty on the user violates the DFSG. I > think that explicitly restricting what the user may do with the software, > however, does. Yes, so the consensus is that "knowledge and consent" constitutes a violation of the DFSG #5 and #6. I agree. -- Bob Bob McElrath (rsmcelrath@students.wisc.edu) Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison, Department of Physics
Attachment:
pgp98vJkXNfnV.pgp
Description: PGP signature