Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 12:14:46PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:
> > > 1) We don't want to tell Professor Smith that he's in violation because
> > > he printed out a DFCL-licensed document, but the font in his laser
> > > printer is proprietary to, say, Hewlett-Packard (or Adobe). He then
> > > makes a dozen copies for his grad students and hands them out. This
> > > should be legitimate.
> >
> > This example suggests that we should add a "small scale" exemption in.
>
> So you are suggesting that taking a DFCL-licensed document, making no
> changes to it, but printing it out on a laser printer that has
> proprietary fonts built into it should be a prohibited activity, for
> which we need an exception?
>
> I would disagree.
I was just noting that the small scale exemption would cover this kind
of activity as well.
> > You could make the same argument about software. What about running
> > the source through a highly proprietary compiler (such as Java)
> > before transmitting? It is a very popular way of disseminating small
> > programs.
>
> There is a difference. The intended application of the DFCL is for
> works whose primary value lies in direct perception by a human being.
> Software's value is different, both in source and object form.
Branden, I thought you would be the last person in the world that I
would have to remind that code is speech. Being able to modify the
source and construct new output is important for both. However, I
think that there is something at the end of this email that may
appease you.
> > > It's fine to mandate that the professor supply a URL to the source-form
> > > of the document when we're talking about Carnegie-Mellon. It's not so
> > > fine to mandate that when we're talking about a school that doesn't even
> > > have a name in Ghana.
> >
> > If we have a small scale exemption, then a teacher in Ghana would not
> > have to worry. If we're talking about more than 100 students in 30
> > days, then there is probably some sort of central authority.
>
> Your limit is arbitrary and your assumption is purely speculative. I am
> extremely resistant to letting hypotheticals drive the adoption of
> arbitrary limits in our license. Please, give me hard data.
I know that it is arbitrary. If we find that there is a need to
change this arbitrary limit, then we can put out a new license. I
think 100 copies in 30 days is a fine place to start, but I'm not
attached to that arbitrary number.
I only proposed the number because there seems to be some desire to
legitimize small scale copying. I don't think it opens up the same
loopholes that occur with programs.
> > For example, if someone wrote a sex-ed piece that the Peace Corp gives
> > to it's members, then the Peace Corp probably has the resources to
> > write a few CD-R's. Of course, it is doubtful that the school kids in
> > Ghana will be able to use these CD-R's. Or even afford the price of
> > "no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution".
>
> In way, this expresses a ghastly level of disenfrachisement from the
> creative commons
I think I'm recognizing reality here. You were worried about
distributing to schoolkids in Ghana. I'm showing that it isn't a
problem. You don't have to like it, it is just the way things are.
> I guess what this is drifting towards is that ever-misunderstood
> "operating system" clause of the GPL:
>
> However, as a special exception, the source code distributed
> need not include anything that is normally distributed (in
> either source or binary form) with the major components
> (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which
> the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies
> the executable.
How about rewording it to say "operating system or hardware". That
should take care of the printer fonts and hardware equalization. We
might have to clarify what it means to say when content "runs" on
hardware, but if that's the only problem then we're basically done.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: