Re: GR proposal - Restricted-media amendments to the DFSG
On 4/10/06, MJ Ray <email@example.com> wrote:
> Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > On 4/7/06, MJ Ray <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > I keep asking why some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted to
> > > prohibit all copy-control measures, as that seems to be a crucial
> > > question in this, and nobody answered yet AFAICT.
> > Power switches can be used as copy control measures.
> That claim has been rebutted in detail on debian-legal last month.
> Repeating it here does not help. You still offer no references.
I was not convinced by this "rebuttal".
Furthermore, I'm not sure what issue(s) you feel references are needed
As proof of the statement "The FDL clearly was not drafted to prevent
power switches", I offer the fact that text editors (which are a
part of one of the requirements of the GFDL) are nearly universally
used on machinery equipped with power switches.
Do you need a reference proving that the GFDL specifies "text
editors" as a part of its requirements?
As proof of the statement "Power switches can be used as copy
control measure", I offer this example: I am offering copies of
a GFDL'd document on a web server. People can make copies.
I turn off the power on the web server. After I've turned off the
power, people can not make copies.
Do you need a reference showing that a web server ceases to
deliver content when the power is turned off?
I will agree that the GFDL does contain a prohibition on using certain
copy control measures in certain contexts, but I see no reason to
agree that it was written to prohibit all copy control measures.