Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:55:05 +0900 (IRKST)
>Fedor Zuev <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> JM>> the freedom of _users_ and _authors_. It is in the best interest of
>> JM>> users to receive unstripped version of manual. It is also in the
>> JM>> best interest of authors. Interest of distributor is non-issue.
>> JM>Are you trying to assert point 2 of the GFDL doesn't restrict
>> JM>freedom of users?
>> Exactly, I still not see any non-stupid demonstration of the
>> contrary. I prefer not to state anything else.
>My $HOME is on an encrypted filesystem. If I have any GFDL
>documents on that filesystem, I'm in violation of the license.
It is not a violation of license to _have_ GFDL documents
anywhere. I already discuss this example in all details.
>If I want to send a friend one of these GFDL documents, I may not use
>SSL or any other form of encryption.
>If I'm on a shared, multi-user system, I must leave any directories a
>GFDL document is in as world-readable; to restrict permissions would be
>to use a technical measure to restrict the further reading of the
Heh. And, according to the same logic, you should not lock
the door of your home, because someone may want to copy document
from your desktop. Get real!
GFDL says about _further_ distribution of already received
work, not about initial copying you may allow or not allow to
someone. But, ever regardless of particular terms of license it is
clear from the law, that you can have any obligations only to the
_legitimate_ recipient of a copy of work. If someone get a copy by
the means, which is illegal itself, without your will, consent and
ever awareness, this can't create for you any obligations to him.
>Are those examples allright? I could come up with more if you'd like.
Please. Maybe you find a less silly example. I can accept