Re: GR proposal - Restricted-media amendments to the DFSG
On 4/13/06, MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Raul Miller <email@example.com>
> > Your question, as stated, asks for an explanation for a state of affairs
> > which does not exist.
> My question is: why do some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted
> to prohibit all technical measures that obstruct or control reading or
> further copying?
> So, you claim that no-one claims the FDL wasn't drafted to cover *all*
> technical measures?
No, I don't make that claim about what other people claim.
I was not making a point about claims. I was making a point about
the FDL, in the context of your question.
> > I find it relatively trivial to show that this state
> > of affairs does not exist.
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/04/msg00034.html
> That message is irrelevant because it is concerned with neither the
> FDL's drafting, nor the copyright law meaning of technical measures.
> It tells me that you don't think the FDL covers technical measures,
> but that seems to be because you have a personal definition of
> technical measures based on dictionaries rather than the bad laws.
I was addressing your question as you stated it.
You did not use the term "technical measures". That term refers to
a legal instrument which has become available to copyright
You did use a term which was similar to some [non-legal] dictionary
definitions of the phrase "technical measures".
If my response was irrelevant, this seems to be because I was responding
to something you wrote which was also irrelevant.