Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL

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

Raul Miller wrote:

> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 03:31:49PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> Not all jurisdictions have a concept of fair use, so licenses which
>> rely upon such a concept generally are not free.
> 
> Ah, this is key.
> 
> I'm need to understand how it's possible to have copyright on computer
> programs in such a jurisdiction -- any copyright which restricts
> unauthorized copying, such as almost any commercial program, would seem
> to be unusable in that kind of jurisdiction.

There may be an explicit right to to make transitory copies a program solely
as part of the course of normal use of the program.  Which is very narrow.

Or you may need a license to copy, and your EULA may grant the right to copy
solely for that purpose.

<snip>
> Hmm...
> 
> There seem to be two ways of reading §3:
> 
>      The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
>      allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license
>      of the original software.
> 
> In one reading, the license must allow all modifications and derived
> works to be distributed, and §4 is an exception.
> 
> In another reading, the license must allow some modifications and derived
> works to be distributed, and §4 is an additional constraint.

In another reading, the license must allow most modifications and derived
works to be distributed, with possible exceptions.  Section 4 can be an
exception or a constraint; your choice.  :-)  There are additional implied
exceptions; derived works can be required to carry accurate attribution,
for instance.  Since these are "guidelines", and since they don't contain
phrases like "All" and "100%", but also don't contain phrases like "Some"
or "A few", this seems like the right interpretation.

> 
> This is an interesting ambiguity.
> 
Indeed.

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