Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
Milan Zamazal wrote:
> Thank you all for your answers, I think I can get the point now.
I'll add a couple more clarifications. :-)
>>>>>> "HM" == Humberto Massa <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> HM> I made a copy. It's not my copyright, is other person. If I do
> HM> "chmod -r", it's a technical measure that obstructs others from
> HM> further copying my copy.
> I think it's not your copyright, but it's still your copy. So
> `chmod -r' is IMHO just stopping distribution of the copy.
Which is precisely what is prohibited. :-P
>From the GFDL:
"You may not use
technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further
copying of the copies you make or distribute."
> Here is the point. If the document was distributed *only* on a CSS
> medium, it might violate copyleft principles. But it should be allowed,
> for example, to distribute the document on such a medium, if it is
> accompanied with a freely readable medium. GFDL is unclear here and
> that's the problem.
Actually, the GFDL is quite clear: you aren't allowed distribute on an
encypted medium even if it's accompanied by a freely readable medium -- you
can't even *make* a copy on an encrypted medium, according to the line I
quoted above. Yes, this is the problem.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.