Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Raul Miller wrote:
> I appreciate that you think that chmod -r is control, but since (from
> a user point of view) it's equivalent to not making the file available
> for download I don't think that this is a meaningful point of view.
As mentioned elsewhere, the problem is that the GFDL applies to *copying*,
not just to *distribution*, and under copyright law this is perfectly
normal, legal, and correct. (Although perhaps it shouldn't be.)
> You might as well claim that deleting text from a region which is not
> immutable constitutes control, that turning off the power to the machine
> is control, that deleting the file is control or that compressing the
> file is control.
> Despite the fact that the copyright notices use the phrase "technical
> measures" it is still a legal document.
> That said -- I'm not trying to convince people that the GFDL as it
> currently stands should be considered DFSG free. I'm ambivalent about
> that. What I am trying to say is that some significant arguments against
> the GFDL don't really make sense.
Only if you don't understand the broad scope of copyright law. :-)
Hopefully you get it now?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.