Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
JK>On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
JK>> According FDL, "You may not use technical measures to
JK>> obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_
JK>> _you_ _make_ _or_ _distribute_". You has no obligations regarding
JK>> you own copy of document. You only cannot distribute document and
JK>> limit access to it in the same time.
JK>However, if you _make_ a copy by using the cp command on your own
JK>system, you are subject to the rule you quoted, and you can't put it on
JK>an encrypted filesystem.
Again. You demand from licensce to cure a problem,
nonexistent under any jurisdiction I heard about.
Computer is a single "tangible medium", and any internal
technological process whithin it, you aware or even not aware about
(How about, for example, a dynamic memory regeneration? Hundreds of
thousands copies of RAM per second btw) is completely irrelevant to
the copyright, and, consequently, licences.
JK>It's also possible to interpret _make_ to cover
JK>a download initiated by you, since a new copy of the program is
JK>certainly being made.
No. At the moment of download you not have the copy of
licence that shipped with the package. So, you cannot agree or not
agree with this licence to get or not get the right to make copy.
For initial download you anyway need an another source of right.
Distributor consent, usually. Distributor has this right, according
to _his_ copy of licence. And licence do not demand from a
distributor to control medium of downloader`s copy. Licence only
demand not to encrypt work himself.
Reply to: