Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller wrote:
> 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
> people]
>
>> 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.
Well, if they had been, they should have said so. But they didn't actually
say that. They just said "technical measures". As far as I know, that
isn't restricted to less than its normal meaning in legalese. In fact, it
appears to have been chosen by DMCA authors *because* of its broadness.
It's an overly broad restriction.
<snip>
>> 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.
Oh. Well, the GFDL with Invariant Sections requires bloat in distributed
binaries.
> However, for example, the DFSG doesn't require that bloat be removed
> from program sources.
<snip>
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: