On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:51:36 +0900 (IRKST) Fedor Zuev <email@example.com> 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 friend-computer:~friend/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 <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>), 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.
Description: PGP signature