Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:20:28PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > 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 don't want to see the DFCL used as a weapon against people who haven't
> done anything ethically illegitimate.
I'm trying to think of a case where this might happen, but I can't.
Especially since the license makes small scale copying an exception to
a general rule.
> > > 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".
>
> It needs to be worded more broadly even than that. It's basically
> anything on the chain of technology from distributor to consumer. The
> information could be transmitted via all kinds of devices, encapsulated
> into all sorts of protocols, carried over all kinds of media, etc. Any
> one of these could have some sort of crazy intellectual property
> restriction on it that isn't the fault of the distributor or consumer.
> This exception needs to be worded so that it is completely neutral
> regarding the means via which the content is transmitted or transported.
>
> The tricky bit is that sometimes the distributor *is* at fault in
> constructing the intellectual property restrictions that have been
> imposed on the network technologies. So we need to prevent the Big
> Media company from taking DFCL-licensed content (like, say, a movie)
> proprietary by putting cripplebits on it and then claiming "oh, we
> didn't do that, our wholly owned cable network operator subsidiary did
> that". You then go to the subsidiary and they say "oh, *we* didn't have
> anything to do with that, you bought that Pay-per-View movie from our
> parent corporation and they sent it to you by your request. We're just
> a common carrier."
I think that you're worrying too much here. In the case you're
talking about, the media giant wouldn't have to produce the
super-ultra-secret hardware that turns on the "no-copy" bit, but they
would have to provide the "preferred form for modifications". The
public still has free access to the movie.
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: