Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com>
> > On 3/26/06, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > > Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com>
> > > > On 3/25/06, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > > > > The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly
> > > > > prohibited.
> > > >
> > > > Only if these copies are are made available to people whose use
> > > > would be controlled by the DRM.
> > >
> > > Rather, if the reading or further copying of those copies is controlled
> > > by the DRM. Please stop changing the FDL's wording to fit your
> > > argument.
> >
> > That's not what the GFDL says.
> >
> > The sentence in question begins
> >
> > "You may not use technical measures to ..."
>
> That cuts it part-way through a phrase.
That's because I'm trying to allude to the contents
of the rest of the sentence. This is also why I
used an ellipses rather than simply a closing
quote.
> > The subject of this sentence is you.
> >
> > The subject of this sentence is not "technical measures".
>
> The object of "use" is "technical measures to obstruct or control
> the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute".
> This is a complete phrase itself. The subject of that phrase *is*
> "technical measures". My, isn't tactical syntax fun!
Yes, the phrase you've identified is the object of the sentence.
However, regardless of the structure of the phrase, it's not a complete
sentence in and of itself.
> > > However, the content of the copies is not named. The copies are.
> > > Objecting to replacing one thing with another is hardly nitpicking.
> > > It changes the sense of the clause.
> >
> > The content of the copies is the material licensed under the GFDL.
> > This is obvious from context.
>
> The copyright is licensed, not the content of the copies. Please take a
> crash course on copyright: http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/crashcourse/
That's why I used the word "under" -- to show the relationship between
the material and the copyright which has been licensed.
Or are you trying to suggest that somehow there is copyrighted
material which is not associated with the copyright for that
material? If so, you've totally lost me.
> > > I am not ignoring the rest of the sentence. However, I am not
> > > rewriting the clause to comply with my imagination.
> >
> > I disagree with both of the assertions you've made here.
>
> Disagreement that I'm not ignoring something? That amounts
> to claiming telepathy and accusing me of lying, which suggests
> reasonable discussion may be over. I suppose the other "clear
> from the context" claims are clear from reading RMS's mind!
No telepathy is required -- I'm saying that what you wrote seems
to ignore parts of that sentence, and seems to include content
which is not included in the license.
If you're going to require that I accept your paraphrases as fact,
without any supporting arguments, then you're right that we're
not having a reasonable discussion.
Note also that I have been known to change my mind about
things in the past -- even about things I've argued for with
considerable energy and interest.
> > > How doesn't that rule out making copies on devices that use
> > > technical measures?
> >
> > That should be clear from the context. Dropping back to the beginning
> > of that paragraph: "You may copy and distribute the Document ...
> > provided ..."
> >
> > The license is talking about this process of copying and distributing
> > the document. It's not talking about some other process. Control of
> > other processes is outside the scope of the license.
>
> This applies "and" in a computer design logic sense, rather than as
> the usual English sense of giving permission for both copying and
> distributing. I guess debian-legal has been bested by this in the past:
> does Raul Miller draft licences for UWashington, by any chance?
No, I have not, and I find the suggestion insulting.
Also, I feel that the UW stipulations about the historical PINE
license are incorrect -- and that we're not distributing PINE more
because we don't think it's worth the bother -- and more generally
because we don't like working with hostile authors -- than because
we think they have a valid legal position.
And, I'll grant that the concept of "copy and distribute" is fuzzier than
the binary meaning if you'll also grant that the concept of reading or
further copying is also fuzzier than the binary meaning.
> Another process (copying without distributing) *is* within the scope of
> licences, being covered by copyright, as previously explained in
> Message-Id: <[🔎] 1142945155.031111.2193.nullmailer@klnet.towers.org.uk>
I believe you're referring to:
50C.-(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of
a copy of a computer program to copy or adapt it, provided that the
copying or adapting-
(a) is necessary for his lawful use; and
(b) is not prohibited under any term or condition of an agreement
regulating the circumstances in which his use is lawful.
But I don't see any reason to think that the sentence in question
is a prohibition in the context of personal use. The best
argument in favor of treating that sentence as a prohibition
seems to rely on totally binary handling of the terms "and" and "or",
seems to conflict with the stated purpose of the document, and
seems rely on reasoning which leads to ludicrous conclusions
(like: you can't carry a GFDLed document on a plane, and you
are not legally allowed to edit a document at wikipedia.org, since
both of these involve the use of "control" and "technical measures"
in the context of people making copies of a GFDL licensed document).
> > The sentence in question disallows you from using technical measures
> > to which would interfere with other people's exercise of this process.
>
> Prejudical assumption!
Thesis.
> According to this, the phrase breaks down to a structure:
> ((You) ; subject
> (may not use technical measures to) ; condition
> (obstruct or control the) ; like copy and distribute
> (reading or further copying of the) ; like verbatim copying
> (copies you make or distribute)). ; constraint
Yes, except I'd call what I wrote a description rather
than a structure.
> Several of those breaks cut across clauses in my view, so I
> don't understand how that interpretation can make sense.
I was talking about the themes being discussed, not the
structure of the sentence. Does that help?
> > The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other
> > functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to
> > assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it,
> > with or without modifying it, either commercially or
> > noncommercially.
> >
> > When the license disallows you from controlling copies, you have
> > to take the expressed purpose of the license into account -- you
> > may not impose some other purpose which conflicts with that of
> > the license.
>
> We have little understanding of what "free" means for documents, much less
> this new lower standard of "effective freedom". The FSF has not produced
> a free document definition and apparently forbidding modification of
> part of the document still assures everyone the effective freedom to
> copy and redistribute it with or without modifying it. It seems possible
> that copying to DRM-only media may be forbidden, from this context.
I think we can agree, however, that the GFDL is meant to allow people
to read copies of GFDL'd documents, even on computer systems where
reading can be thought of as making new copies which technically
are being controlled in various fashions (such as position on the
screen, or in the file system).
Can we agree that far?
Or are you trying to claim that the GFDL disallows this, even though
the sentence you would base such a claim on explicitly disallows
such restrictions?
> > Please provide your reasoning for your claim that a user is not free
> > to put their own copies on DRM media (as opposed to the claim that a
> > user is not allowed to use DRM media to restrict other people's access
> > to copies).
>
> I view it as most probably structured:
> ((You) ; subject
> (((may not) use) ; verb clause
> ((technical measures) ; object.subject
> (to obstruct or control) ; object.verb
> ((the reading or further copying) ; object.object.property
> (of) ; object.object.preposition
> ((the copies) ; object.object.owner.object
> (you) ; object.object.owner.subject
> (make or distribute)))))). ; object.object.owner.verb
>
> At the top level, it's a simple subject-verb-object structure.
> The object has its own subject-verb-object structure.
> The object's object is a property-preposition-owner and that
> owner is object-subject-verb. The property and two verbs in
> the top-level subject contain alternates.
I'm with you so far.
> Now, let $DRMmedia be media that uses technical measures to obstruct
> or control the reading or further of anything on it - agreed?
I don't agree -- I think this statement is overly vague.
--
Raul
Reply to: