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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Keith Dunwoody wrote:

>Fedor Zuev wrote:

>> 	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!

>Exactly. According to the logic of the GFDL you should not lock the
>door of your home.  See why the GFDL is a bad license?

>> 	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.

> From the infamous document, section 2:

>You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
>reading or further copying of the copies you /make/ or distribute.
>(emphisis mine)

>By downloading a copy of a GFDL document you are making a copy of
>it -- no redistribution required

	IMHO, there a some misunderstanding of how public licenses
works. Excuse me, if you mean something else, but I should be sure.

	There is no single GFDL (GPL, BSDL, APL) written on the
clouds and expected to be known for everyone.

	Each particular copy of public license (GFDL) is a written
offer from the copyright holder (FSF) to the owner of the copy (you)
to perform some action, which, according to copyright law, is a
exclusive right of copyright holder. To make a deal you may write
"Yes!" on the license, sign it and send signed copy back to FSF. But
this is not an expected way to make a deal in this case. According
to the most of the contract laws, offer becomes accepted, and
contract becomes "signed" if the _recipient_ of the written offer
has executed _his part of the agreement_. In this case - if you, in
reply to offer (GFDL), perform any action, which, according to
copyright law, is a exclusive right of copyright holder. Please note

	1) Can't be counted as accept any action you perform
_before_ you receive and read the offer. You definitely can't read
the offer (GFDL) before you downloaded the package, and you may well
not read it at all, if you are pure user. Therefore, downloading
from the Net is _not_, an can _not_ be governed by your copy of
GFDL, because you do not have such copy yet. It is governed by copy
of GFDL owned by distributor|hoster|webmaster, and not of your
concern at all.

	2) Can't be counted as accept any action that is not the
subject of the agreement. Subject of agreement in this case -
transfer of rights. Therefore, can't be counted as accept any
action, which you have statutory (directly from the law) right to
perform. Namely: installation from CD|DVD-ROM, quotation and
other fair use, backup, non-public (f.e. for single user) display
via electronic means (f.e. SSL).

	If you do not believe (reasonably, never believe anyone) to
my interpretation of law, you can read directly in the body of GFDL:


 You accept the license if you copy, modify or distribute the work
in a way requiring permission under copyright law.


_In_ _a_ _way_ _requiring_ _permission_ _under_ _copyright_ _law_!


	3) After both sides executed their parts of agreement, the
contract is finished (sorry, not know proper english term) and
obligations of sides expired. In this case, atfer you perform all
required stances to distribute or make some particular copy of the
work under the terms of GFDL, you are free again, and don't have any
obligations to the copyright holder. GO TO 1.

	Understand? Agree? Then re-read my previous letter.

Reply to: