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

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net>
> 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.

According to a quick browse of the list archive, the most recently-stated
reasons were that copyright law only covers distribution, that "and"
and "or" are synonymous and that I am insane.  All false.

> > 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.

By the same reasoning, if I dropped my credit card and someone cloned it,
I'd've implicitly given the details to them. I really hope you never work
for my bank!

> > 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.

Not at all.

Firstly, you seem to be quoting wordnet or some other unreliable
reference without naming it. Please state your references. Also, try
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ - it isn't perfect, but is fairly good.
Disputing the definition of 'technology' isn't my objection to your
reasoning, but it may suggest other different views.

More importantly, I insist that brick walls and safes are not
technological measures for protecting work because the protection is
obtained from their nature and not by their operation technology.
Their construction (not the best word, as I include closing the safe)
uses technology, but the protection does not operate technologically.

You seem to be arguing that technological measures are any measures
that have used technology at any time. That's much broader than the
law. Remember, the applicable law here was quoted in:

I think it is a bad law, but it is not as bad as if "techological
measures" were really broad enough to cover walls and safes.

> 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.

That is not my argument, taken to extreme or otherwise.

Hope that clarifies,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: