Re: Not inherently free, but inherently non-free?
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Milan Zamazal wrote:
> 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.
You could probably construct a case for it, which is one of the
reasons why this clause is kind of silly. [I'd hope that you wouldn't
get very far with such a case, but...]
> 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.
Yes, but you're still using technical means to restrict the use and
distribution on the encrypted copy.
> The question is whether this can legally apply to a private copy at
> all, maybe it doesn't apply to private copies by law.
This becomes a jurisdiction specific question, which are really hard
to answer. Some jurisdictions lack a concept of free use, so we cannot
assume that the licenses that we review are going to be examined
solely in the legal context of the United States (or some Country Y.)
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but
won't cross the street to vote in a national election.
-- Bill Vaughan