[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A possible approach in "solving" the FDL problem

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, John Galt wrote:

JG>>JK>On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:50:32PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
JG>>JK>> 	According FDL, "You may not use technical measures to
JG>>JK>> obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the _copies_
JG>>JK>> _you_ _make_ _or_ _distribute_". You has no obligations regarding
JG>>JK>> you own copy of document. You only cannot distribute document and
JG>>JK>> limit access to it in the same time.
JG>>JK>However, if you _make_ a copy by using the cp command on your own
JG>>JK>system, you are subject to the rule you quoted, and you can't put it on
JG>>JK>an encrypted filesystem.
JG>>	Again. You demand from licensce to cure a problem,
JG>>nonexistent under any jurisdiction I heard about.
JG>>	Computer is a single "tangible medium", and any internal
JG>>technological process whithin it, you aware or even not aware about
JG>>(How about, for example, a dynamic memory regeneration? Hundreds of
JG>>thousands copies of RAM per second btw) is completely irrelevant to
JG>>the copyright, and, consequently, licences.

JG>_MAI Systems v. Peak Computer_ (991 F.2d 511) says otherwise.  To quote

	AFAIK this case was about loading program from the external
storage device.

	But OK, I can narrow my statement to "your hard drive is a
single tangible medium....".

JG>>JK>It's also possible to interpret _make_ to cover
JG>>JK>a download initiated by you, since a new copy of the program is
JG>>JK>certainly being made.
JG>>	No. At the moment of download you not have the copy of
JG>>licence that shipped with the package. So, you cannot agree or not
JG>>agree with this licence to get or not get the right to make copy.
JG>>For initial download you anyway need an another source of right.
JG>>Distributor consent, usually. Distributor has this right, according
JG>>to _his_ copy of licence. And licence do not demand from a
JG>>distributor to control medium of downloader`s copy. Licence only
JG>>demand not to encrypt work himself.

JG>Upon download, a new license gets granted from the FSF to
JG>yourself. Given that breaking shrinkwrap can constitute
JG>acceptance of a license, it is not that much of a stretch to say
JG>that double-clicking or issuing a "get foo" to your download
JG>client isn't enough to constitute acceptance of a license.

	Which license? You find licension in the package, after
any download already finished.

Reply to: