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

Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL

Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com>
> For example, taking some GFDL'd documentation, embedding
> it in an executable, then making it available to users of a
> multi-user system with read and write permissions disabled
> (and only granting execute permissions) would constitute a
> violation of the GFDL if additional steps were not also taken
> to keep this legal (for example: granting users access to a debian
> ftp archive).

Is parallel distribution of an uncontrolled copy acceptable?
I don't see how that isn't controlling the controlled copy in
a way that falls afoul of the licence.

> But so what?  We don't require that we protect users from ever
> doing something bad. [...]

We also require that licences don't try to stop users from ever
doing something bad, such as operating nuclear missiles.

> > > During the normal course of execution of a program, you
> > > need to make numerous copies of a program.  One for
> > > memory, one for swap, one for L2 cache, numerous
> > > small ones for L1 cache, ...
> In the specific case, I'm saying that such copying to L2 cache is not
> covered by the GFDL.  The GFDL does not specifically prohibit such
> copying.

The FDL would be a terrible licence for programs, but such copying is
necessarily covered by copyright and the FDL covers it: it just leaves
the defaults in place. (If English law defaults were changed badly on
this, I'd probably agree with calling it a basket-case and ignoring
much of it for the purposes of review here, as seemingly advocated.)

> It's interesting that the U.K. will remove permissions that are present
> without any explicit permission when explicit permission is granted,

I think that's a misunderstanding, but irrelevant as you say.

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

Reply to: