Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 10:06:37AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Really? How does that give any rights regarding the GFDL "file"? You may
> have the limited right, under copyright law, to make the copies which are
> necessary to run "chmod", but that doesn't help you when it comes to the
> copyright of "file".
I'm trying to envision the scenario you're concerned about.
I suspect this is because we have wildly different ideas about what it
is that we're talking about.
>From my point of view: GFDL grants a number of rights, and retracts them
under certain circumstances.
I believe the circumstances it retracts them is when someone providing
a GFDL document attempts to control how someone else uses the copy.
>From this point of view, complete and utter refusal to distribute a copy
(chmod -r) does not constitute control.
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.
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.
--
Raul
Reply to: