[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 10:49:22AM -0700, andy@wolfsinger.com wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:23:51PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> <Big snip; big extrapolation>
> > 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.
> Hmm. So if I have an hardware encryption passthrough on my computer, I
> could not have any GFDL works installed at all? :)

That appears to be a reasonable interpretation of the license terms[1].
While the FSF doesn't appear to interpret it that way itself, other
copyright holders in GNU FDL-licensed works may choose to interpret it


    You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
    commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
    copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to
    the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other
    conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use
    technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying
    of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept
    compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough
    number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.

    You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and
    you may publicly display copies.

G. Branden Robinson                |     Reality is what refuses to go away
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     when I stop believing in it.
branden@debian.org                 |     -- Philip K. Dick
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: