Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:29:24PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> [...]
> > Computers are technological. If someone doesn't have a computer, they won't
> > be able to read the copy I give them. Does that mean that the GFDL obligates
> > me to buy everyone in the world a computer? [...]
>
> Only if you are arguing that the FDL clause's meaning of technological
> measures is different to the law's meaning. In that case, the clause is
> a lawyerbomb rather than clearly failing DFSG and I still dislike it.
I don't think it's a 'lawyerbomb'. In order to sue, the FSF would need to
have been damaged in some way and be able to prove damages. What damages
would they have in this case?
I guess they could sue to enforce compliance of the license, assuming they
interpret it the same way you do, but it would be a serious waste of time
and money.
> > Access controls only control who has access to a copy. They don't control
> > who can make a copy. Only a current owner of a copy can make a copy.
>
> So the users of my machines are taking ownership of my original data now,
> or am I giving them copies by letting them use my computer, or what?
By keeping your copy in a world readable directory, you are offering them
copies. The computer provides a facility for them to request and obtain
copies automatically, without your involvement. That does not change the
fact that distribution is taking place, with you as the distributor.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam@debian.org> <adam@flounder.net>
Reply to: