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

Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:40:25AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
[you seem to have attributed my words to Manoj -- but we are different

> On May 2, 2004, at 14:25, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> >    "obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies
> >     you make or distribute"
> >
> > In other words, clause isn't about copying, but about "further 
> > copying".
> I read it as:
> 	(obstruct OR control) (the reading OR further copying) of the
> 	copies you (make OR distribute)

I'll grant that my observation about "further copying" is moot, however,
the phrase you've quoted has no verb, so you have not addressed the
other aspect of my argument.

> > I'm fairly confident the phrase "technical measures to obstruct or
> > control" refers to the concept of having a legal right to obstruct
> > control the reading or copying of the document after distribution.
> If they wanted to prohibit you from using legal measures --- the DMCA, 
> for example --- why did they say "technical measures" instead of "legal 
> measures"?

Because they are specifically talking about technical measures to enforce
intellectual property rights.  This has been a major feature of recent
copyright laws and treaties. 

Try a google search on: 
	"technical measures" copy 
for an informal treatment of this issue.

> > The current DFSG does not prohibit bloat.  Bloat is something which we
> > manage arbitrarily.
> No, it does not prohibit bloat. I does, however, prohibit legally 
> requiring bloat.

If by bloat, you mean "bloat in program binaries", this is true.
However, for example, the DFSG doesn't require that bloat be removed
from program sources.

> > [Similarly, if some crazy government imposes
> > penalties on people who distribute documents containing the letter "e",
> > this is a problem in that government, not a problem in Debian.]
> But if the license requires that the document be at least 10% e's, then 
> its a license problem.

There is no license in that sentence.

Note, however, that the word "Debian" contains the letter "e".

> >    Freedoms For Documentation
> >
> > These look like worthwhile goals, but do not look like DFSG issues.
> Many, if not all of them, are.

Could you be more specific?

> > Conclusion: a number of the points in the position statement look like
> > they could be real problems in a number of circumstances, but few of 
> > them
> > (if any) are DFSG issues.
> Please read the discussions of the GFDL in the archives of -legal.

Could you be more specific?


Reply to: