Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

Milan Zamazal wrote:

> Thank you all for your answers, I think I can get the point now.
I'll add a couple more clarifications.  :-)

<snip>
>>>>>> "HM" == Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> writes:
<snip>
>     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."

<snip>
> 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.