Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Not really: if it said "and" it would be limited to certain cases.
> The "or" case gives us an obvious and troublesome example.
I don't agree, for reasons already mentioned.
> It seems fairly obvious that other people may have access to a copy that
> I made without me distributing it to them, especially on multi-user systems
> like debian.
If other people have access to it, then you've (at least implicitly)
distributed it. Apply the same example to a copyrighted MP3 file, with
enough other users on the system, and you'd have the RIAA on your ass pretty
quick.
> I consider my interpretation far saner than inserting random extra unwritten
> limits into the licence, such as excluding non-distributed copies. If you
> showed references to support ignoring whole rafts of English copyright law,
> I'd be more respectful of your arguments and wild claims.
OK, how about this. You insist that a brick wall or safe are not
'technological' measures.
However, the definition of technology is:
technology
n 1: the practical application of science to commerce or industry
[syn: {engineering}]
2: the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying
scientific knowledge to practical problems; "he had
trouble deciding which branch of engineering to study"
[syn: {engineering}, {engineering science}, {applied
science}]
I don't see how a brick wall or a safe would not fit either of these
definitions. You seem to be using or thinking of the word 'technology' as
only computer technology.
Taken to the extreme, if your argument holds, it would be illegal to keep a
copy of a GFDL document locked in a safe, or inside a house with locked
doors. Therefore, I can't accept this as a sane reading of the license.
Especially given that the license specifically says that you can charge for
making copies.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@debian.org> <adam@flounder.net>
Reply to: