Re: FSF has published GNU FDL version 1.2
firstname.lastname@example.org (Brian T. Sniffen) wrote:
> Walter Landry <email@example.com> writes:
> > Let's say that the library has two things you can get, the texinfo
> > source files and a pdf generated from them. People are unlikely to
> > print out the texinfo files, so they would naturally try to print out
> > the pdf. So the library sets the "do not print" flag on the pdf,
> > making it unlikely that anyone will print out the Emacs manual.
> > The library is not distributing copies of the manual, but they are
> > using "technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or
> > further copying of the copies" that they made. This is a completely
> > reasonable _use_ that is not allowed by the GFDL.
> Your broad definition of "technical measures to obstruct or control
> the reading or further copying of the copies" would prevent me from
> keeping a GFDL-licensed work locked in my house: the doors and locks
> obstruct reading by random passerby.
Just because the clause can be taken to an absurd limit doesn't mean
that it won't be enforced in more "reasonable" circumstances. I don't
think that my interpretation is all that extreme.
> Clearly, this section is meant to refer to measures which obstruct or
> control reading or further copying by the owners of the existing
> copies. Since the library isn't distributing copies, only allowing
> browsing, there's no problem.
> If they do distribute PDF copies, of course, it has to be the unlocked PDF
> which is distributed, together with the texinfo source.
So you're saying that it is not legitimate to distribute locked pdf's,
even if you distribute the source along with it? That sounds like a
real limitation on what kind of derived works are allowed (DFSG #3).