Re: the FSF's definition of Free Software and its value for Debian
Scripsit Jakob Bohm <jbj@image.dk>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:49:03AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the
> > Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties
> > in possession of the Document the authority to gain access to the
> > work by descrambling the work if it is scrambled, decrypting the
> > work if it is encrypted, and otherwise avoiding, bypassing,
> > removing, deactivating, or impairing any and all technological
> > measures effectively controlling access to the work.
> I think it is still too widely scoped. If I place a copy of the
> document in a gpg encrypted e-mail along with something not for
> public consumption, all the ISPs on the way are in possession of
> a copy. This clause allows them to crack it open.
Yes, but if gpg works as intended (and I'm reasonably certain that a
lot of smart people have tried without success to demonstrate that it
does not), they *can't* crack it open, irrespective of the right they
get. Notice that it is not a right to demand that you supply a key.
> Also even in the intended case of allowing people to decode CSS
> like protection on a copy, the clause may make the whole
> document non-distributable due to a conflicting obligation to
> obey a DMCA-like law.
Is there any "DMCA-like laws" anywhere that say that a copyright
holder can *not* authorize other people to access his work?
--
Henning Makholm "Ligger Öresund stadig i Middelfart?"
Reply to: