Re: {SPAM} Question about GFDL licensed works
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:17:27PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Em Dom, 2006-02-12 às 09:22 -0600, Manoj Srivastava escreveu:
> > If people who sponsored the second amendment can explain to me
> > why something that prevents me from using SELinux when all I am doing
> > is unpack and copy make sources is deemed free, I would be, err,
> > grateful.
>
> Hmmm... I still didn't buy this argument... But it has been argued that
It follows straightforwardly from a simple reading of the license, so I
don't think there's anything to "buy". The license says no "technical
measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the
copies you make or distribute", and that's a description of a "password".
> it is not the intent of this license clause and that, because of that,
> it would not be enforceable, as, even the text not saying that, some
> other references around are sufficient to disable this type of
> enforcement of the license.
If I put a work under the GFDL, nothing RMS says about the license can
"disable" parts of it for me. RMS is authoratative only for works owned
by the FSF, not the whole world.
His statements don't clarify to me at all what it really *does* mean,
either. If the description is not intended to include passwords and
file permissions, then I have no idea where it draws the boundary
between that and DRM.
> I'm not sure this is acceptable, but:
> 1) This proposal recognizes that the referred application of such
> restriction is, indeed, non-free.
> 2) but also says this application is not what the license wants to say
> and is not enforceable because of that (using other references to
> clarify that).
But it's what it does say, and I don't see how an estoppel argument based
on something RMS has said is relevant, when RMS does not own the work.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: