Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:25:59PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net>
> > On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 01:53:17PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Maybe in the US. Private copies in England have more limited scope and we
> > > seem to have limited or no right to make backups. This does comply with
> > > both letter and spirit of the Berne Union, as far as I can tell, so can't
> > > simply be ignored as a basket-case legal system.
> >
> > Still, the person making the private copy is not distributing to anyone. So
> > as long as he doesn't employ a technological measure to prevent *himself*
> > from making further copies, he still complies with the license.
>
> I don't see that: it says 'make or distribute' not 'make and distribute'.
What's the difference?
If you don't have permission from the law to make copies, then you need to
follow the license terms.
The license doesn't say that you have to give a copy of the document to
anyone who wants one. (Indeed, it even allows a monetary fee for the service
of copying). It says that you can't try to prevent the people you give
copies to from making further copies.
If you're not distributing, then you only need to make sure you're not
preventing yourself from making further copies, and that would be a
ridiculous thing to do in the first place.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@debian.org> <adam@flounder.net>
Reply to: