Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:58:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> We need to:
> 1) Ensure that people have unlimited permission to do sane and
> reasonable things, like netcast a piece of DFCL music, print out a DFCL
> document, and perform a DFCL play.
> 2) Ensure that people can modify and distribute DFCL licensed works
> without hamstringing or preventing their consumers' rights in goal 1).
> This is the essence of copyleft.
> Okay, what follows is a brainstorm, not an argument...
>
> Perhaps the copyleft restriction pertaining to redistribution of
> modified works in source form need only apply to transformations which
> were deliberately applied for their own sake? I'll admit, there's
> weasel room in that, but...
I would suggest focusing more on the fact that we are dealing with
the issue of reproducing the work than transforming it. Maybe something
like "whilst the exact process used to reproduce the work as distributed
from the provided source need not be Freely reproducible, *a* free process
which will result in an equivalent work (differing only in the aesthetic
quality/fidelity of the reproduction) must be (made) available"
I'm not suggesting that as exact wording, but to try to explain the
concept I'm thinking of.
A point to bear in mind: do we want to allow the final work to be distributed
in a format for which there exists no free method of reproduction from the
provided source? e.g. MP3 as opposed to Ogg, if Fraunhofer/Thomson have
their way?
Or more importantly, some future format which may be *the* way to distribute,
which is only produced by some ubiquitous new device... well, like laser
printers in the days before there were any free fonts.
> A traditional GPL-style copyleft certainly prevents the proprietary
> equalization/compression-using netcaster scenario. The problem is when
> proprietary technologies impose themselves into the dissemination stream
> for the work despite the good and honorable intentions of the
> distributor. Consider what just might be happening with digital
> television broadcast streams in the U.S.; a mandatory anti-copying
> mechanism bolted onto the content. Consider that the DVD CCA won't
> grant you a license to claim that your optical disk playback device is a
> "DVD" player (let alone license the patents) unless you agree to
> implement the CSS technology and enforce region codes.
I don't think I'd mind my work being put onto a DVD using CSS, so long as
the source provided allowed it to be put onto a "DVD" in some other (Free)
way.
> I guess what we need is an exception for anything in the technology
> stream between the distributor and those he is distributing to, as long
> as he has no relationship with any entity that has proprietary ownership
> of any process that is applied to the data while it travels from him to
> his consumers.
The "no relationship" is an interesting idea.
> An amusing consequence of this is that because all the major U.S. movie
> studios are in cahoots with the DVD CCA, such a broadly-worded
> restriction would prevent them from disseminating a DFCL-licensed
> independent film on DVD[4], but would let truly independent publishers
> market it. For me, this is a delicious irony,
It's not even particularly ironic, it's just nice to see that it follows
logically from our aims and thought process so far...
Cheers,
Nick
--
Nick Phillips -- nwp@lemon-computing.com
This life is yours. Some of it was given to you; the rest, you made yourself.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: