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

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.

Reply to: