Re: A possible GFDL compromise
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, David B Harris wrote:
>> 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
>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
You have a wrong examples. And, perhaps, you have a wrong
theory behind these examples.
You do not show the difference between copying and
distribution. Under legal terms both cases constitute copying, not
distribution (and first case may constitute not even a copying, if
both original and resulting files located on the same tangible
You can make a new copy of work.
Or, you can distribute existed copies of work.
Distribution is not include copying. If you copy work on
your own medium (floppy, CD), then give that madium to someone - you
copy and distribute. If you copy work for someone to _his_ medium -
you just copy, not distribute. Because there is no "transfer of
ownership" on the medium itself.
All "distribution" (in your terms) over Internet, by
HTTP|FTP|SSH is _copying_, not distribution (in legal terms).
Therefore, words "copies you make or distribute" is absolutely
necessary for the purpose of the license. You may want additional
clarification of non-trivial things. You may want to add "[the
reading or further copying] by any legitimate owner of this copy"
(however, I not sure it will be a great idea). But you can not just
remove "copies you make", without disruption of the whole intention
of license. The same for GPL.
>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 <[🔎] email@example.com>), 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.
I send three answers to your examples.
It is not enough? Then, please, provide some new arguments,
or new examples, not repeat again and again the same old junk.
>Even if this weren't the case (ie: it only specified distribution), the
>consequences would still be pretty bad. Certainly onerous and non-Free.