Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
>>>>> "NN" == Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com> writes:
NN> Milan Zamazal wrote:
> I think it's not your copyright, but it's still your copy. So
> `chmod -r' is IMHO just stopping distribution of the copy.
NN> Which is precisely what is prohibited. :-P
NN> From the GFDL:
NN> "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
NN> reading or further copying of the copies you make or
Is locking your computer room "a technical measure to obstruct or
control the reading or further copying"? It's not so easy to read the
text and IANAL.
NN> Actually, the GFDL is quite clear: you aren't allowed distribute
NN> on an encypted medium even if it's accompanied by a freely
NN> readable medium --
If you give the user an identical copy on a non-protected medium, the
user can quite clearly read and copy it as he likes. Again, IANAL to
know how to read the term precisely.
NN> you can't even *make* a copy on an encrypted medium, according
NN> to the line I quoted above.
The question is whether this can legally apply to a private copy at all,
maybe it doesn't apply to private copies by law. The next question is
whether this is really an obstruction -- if someone gets the encrypted
copy, he can either read and copy it and then it's no real obstruction
or he can't read it because he doesn't own the encryption key which
might simply mean he is not an intended recipient (see the locked room
example above). As usually, IANAL.
All that said, I'd be happy if GFDL was much more clear to mere mortals.
"Having GNU Emacs is like having a dragon's cave of treasures."
Robert J. Chassell