Re: For those who care about the GR
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:08:46PM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Bill Allombert]
> > > > There exist fields of endeavours that require mandatory
> > > > encryption. For example, if you work in security-sensitive
> > > > field, you can be required to use a hard-drive with built-in
> > > > encryption. This technology certainly control who can read the
> > > > disk. In that case, you cannot copy a GFDL licensed document to
> > > > your computer for reading it.
>
> > > That's not at all what DFSG 6 means. That's equivalent to
> > > interpreting DFSG 6 to ban the GPL on the grounds that it
> > > discriminates against proprietary software companies.
>
> > No, the GPL does not ban proprietary software companies from using
> > the software.
>
> Exactly. And neither does the GFDL ban people from using the
> documentation if they work in a security field.
The GFDL does ban them: they are not allowed to copy the document on
their computer so they cannot read it.
> It's an equivalent case. The DFSG does not say that any particular
> requirements related to a field of endeavor must be honored. This is
> true whether that requirement is "in order to use this software, we
> really need to be able to make proprietary derivatives" or "in order to
> use this documentation, we really need to store it on encrypted media".
The GPL allows you to make proprietary derivatives as long as you do not
distribute them.
This section is about usage not distribution. It says "making use of
the program" not "redistribute the program".
> > > DFSG 6 does not say "anything a company might plausibly want to do,
> > > our software must allow them to do". It merely says that every
> > > field of endeavor must be given the same rights. Never mind
> > > whether that set of rights is enough to satisfy any given party.
> >
> > No it does not either. It says "The license must not restrict anyone
> > from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor". No
> > mention of "giving the same right".
>
> The whole point of the DFSG is to guarantee the giving of rights.
> Perhaps a better wording would be "giving the rights outlined in the
> rest of the DFSG" rather than "giving the same rights". Either
But it still does not say "giving the rights outlined in the rest of the DFSG",
it says "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the
program in a specific field of endeavor".
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: