Re: the FSF's definition of Free Software and its value for Debian

[Jakob Bohm <jbj@image.dk>]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:49:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:29:32AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> > Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
> > 
> > > I don't see what's unclear, ambiguous, or inefficient about saying "the
> > > recipient and all third parties".
> >                                  ^
> > "in posesion of the (modified) software", right?
> > 
> > Otherwise it can sound like "source must be available to everybody"
> > again.
> 
> Yes, your correction seems apropos.
> 
> So, my proposal for the wording of this clause is:
> 
>   Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
>   Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties
>   in possession of the Document the authority to gain access to the
>   work by descrambling the work if it is scrambled, decrypting the
>   work if it is encrypted, and otherwise avoiding, bypassing,
>   removing, deactivating, or impairing any and all technological
>   measures effectively controlling access to the work.
> 

I think it is still too widely scoped.  If I place a copy of the
document in a gpg encrypted e-mail along with something not for
public consumption, all the ISPs on the way are in possession of
a copy.  This clause allows them to crack it open.  There are
similar situations with other forms of storage.

Also even in the intended case of allowing people to decode CSS
like protection on a copy, the clause may make the whole
document non-distributable due to a conflicting obligation to
obey a DMCA-like law.

A better solution would be to define as an opaque form any
format which prevents exercising the rights granted by the
license, whether that prevention is a deliberate technological
measure (such as CSS or SCMS) or an incidental fact of a format,
such as the lack of free tools (example: MS Word before AbiWord
became available), a hard-to-edit form (such as a bitmap
depicting the document as it would be printed), a non-editable
medium (such as printed paper) or any other reason.

Combined with the obligation to provide recipients with a
transparent copy, this would preserve the recipients rights
without an unnecessary conflict with protection mechanisms
backed by big powerful organizations.


Just trying to be constructive and helpful


Jakob

-- 
This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings,
do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may
indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue.
Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.