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

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

Milan Zamazal wrote:

>>>>>> "NN" == Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.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
>     NN> distribute."
> 
>     NN> <snip>
> 
> Is locking your computer room "a technical measure to obstruct or
> control the reading or further copying"? 
Well, it's certainly a "technical measure".  If it's done in order to
prevent people from reading the copy on your computer, well, then it is "a
technical measure to obstruct or control the reading or further copying". 
(If it's done for some other reason, maybe it isn't.)  "chmod -r" can't
really be done for any other reason, which is why it was the example I
chose.

This can't be what they meant, but it's certainly what they said.  Sloppy
sloppy.

> 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.
Yeah, but not the original copy.  Hmm.

>  Again, IANAL to
> know how to read the term precisely.
Yeah.

> 
>     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.
That would be nice.  :-)  Unfortunately, current legal precedent appears to
be that copyright does apply to making private copies.

>  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.
There doesn't seem to be any question of 'intended recipient'; you simply
aren't licensed to make a copy whose reading is obstructed by 'technical
measures'.

This appears to be an error in drafting.  It's unfortunate that it wasn't
caught earlier, but I've learned from my interactions with them that, on
the average, lawyers are *sloppy*.  I asked the lawyer writing my will to
make corrections so many times it wasn't funny.

> All that said, I'd be happy if GFDL was much more clear to mere mortals.
Yeah.  We have been *very* unhappy about incomprehensible license texts.

-- 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.