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

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

On 3/15/06, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <moth.debian@gmail.com>
> > Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent
> > unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using.
> I can see some difficulty in proving they are technological, but
> if a marker pen can be classed as a circumvention device, it seems
> possible that they might be technological measures sometimes, if
> they are doors or walls designed to prevent such copying.

I don't have a clue what you're saying, here.

> > Same thing goes for the atlantic ocean -- the atlantic ocean can prevent
> > unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using.
> >
> > Notice a trend here?  None of this has anything to do with preventing
> > someone who has a copy from making unauthorized copies.
> That situation isn't my main concern. File permissions clearly
> "obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies
> you make or distribute" as well as meet the definition of a
> technological measure.

Only when file permissions that you control are applied to copies
you distribute to someone else.  If you've given someone else a
copy and they can't control the file permissions on a copy, that
would be a problem.

But I don't see why this should be considered a serious issue.

> > > The other things you mention are how technological measures are
> > > sometimes used, but that's not how it's phrased in law or in the FDL.
> >
> > Do you seriously believe the GFDL prohibits the atlantic ocean?
> It's very hard to argue that the atlantic ocean was designed to prevent
> unauthorised copying, which is part of the legislative definition here.

That was my point:

An argument which would treat the atlantic ocean as DRM must
be wrong.


Reply to: