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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:51:36 +0900 (IRKST)
Fedor Zuev <fedor@earth.crust.irk.ru> wrote:
> >"of the copies you *make or distribute*"
> >
> >Emphasis mine. The language is pretty clear.
> ---/text/dossie/gfdl/fdl.txt----------
> You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
> commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
> copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License
> applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you
> add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.  You
> may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or
> further copying of the copies you make or distribute.  However, you
> may accept compensation in exchange for copies.  If you distribute a
> large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in
> section 3.
> --------------------------------------
> 	Is there a such big difference between "copy" and "make
> copies"?

Implicit in the first half of that paragraph is "you must follow the
terms of this license."

Therefore, section 2 is still in effect. We cannot use *any tecnical
measures* to control further distribution of any copies we make (ie: 'cp
gfdl-doc.txt gfdl-doc-2.txt') or distribute (ie: 'scp gfdl-doc.txt

The difference in between "make a copy" and "distribute a copy" is
pretty clear. By specifying _both_ (as opposed to just distribution,
which would be bad enough in itself, see my second example in
<[🔎] 20030825135123.6df39c79.david@eelf.ddts.net>), that means for all
intents and purposes making a copy for myself is the same as sending a
copy to somebody else. In other words, I'm distributing it to myself.

Even if this weren't the case (ie: it only specified distribution), the
consequences would still be pretty bad. Certainly onerous and non-Free.

Attachment: pgp24DKOfmK43.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: