On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > Strike it and replace it with: > > Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the > Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that > receive copies indirectly through the recipient the authority to gain > access to the work by descrambling a scrambled work, decrypting an > encrypted work, or otherwise avoiding, bypassing, removing, > deactivating, or impairing a technological measure effectively > controlling access to a work. Sounds much better, thank you. Is the phraseology "effectively controls access to a work" a conscious thumb-nosing at the DMCA? Is it reasonable to fear getting sued by someone using this license because someone avoiding, bypassed, removed, deactivated, or impaired a technological measure that was *ineffective* at controlling access to a work? :) BTW, the final two words should probably be "the work", not "a work"; the license on the Work should only compel a grant of permission with respect to itself. -- G. Branden Robinson | You can have my PGP passphrase when Debian GNU/Linux | you pry it from my cold, dead branden@debian.org | brain. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Adam Thornton
Attachment:
pgpA7gQ8ZPwbP.pgp
Description: PGP signature