Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/17/06, MJ Ray <email@example.com> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > On 3/15/06, MJ Ray <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > "Raul Miller" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > > 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.
> Rephrase: I don't agree the same goes for a brick wall because it's
> not technological, but sillier decisions have been made before.
This is silly.
However, for the purposes of argument, let's say that the bricks
are made of a graphite composite.
Better yet, let's fall back to the atlantic ocean, where a someone
transports a GFDL'd document by jet.
Better yet, why don't we recognize that the phrase "technical measures"
has a very specific meaning when we're talking about copyright
...if we use the obvious meaning, then I have no problem agreeing
with you that bricks do not constitute technical measures.
But if you're not going to agree with me that the obvious meaning is
the relevant meaning, then I see no reason to agree with you that
examples involving bricks are not technical.
> > 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.
> Why is distribution important? It's a copyright licence, not a
> distribution licence: it covers making copies, too, and that's
> mentioned explicitly in that clause too.
Ok, to put a fine point on it: only acts of copying which are regulated
by copyright law matter.
> > > > 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.
> And my point was: my argument would not treat the atlantic as DRM.
> Hope that explains,
You've said that you have an argument. But I don't understand that