On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 06:39 -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Did any of you actually *read* this? Read it. > > What it actually *says*, means that storing a copy on a multiuser machine with > UNIX permissions set so that it can't be read by everyone is *prohibited*. > > The permissions are clearly a "technical measure". They clearly obstruct and > control the reading or further copying of that copy. To me, the problem is evident when pulling out the four different combinations of "reading", "further copying", "the copies you make" and "the copies you distribute". 1: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading of the copies you make. 2: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading of the copies you distribute. 3: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the further copying of the copies you make. 4: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the further copying of the copies you distribute. Combinations 1 and 3 are the problematic ones, since they restrict what you can do with your own copy and your own copies of your copy. Combinations 2 and 4 concern copies that you have given away to others. The restriction in these cases is quite reasonable, it just means you don't get to decide how the recipient can read or copy the document. In any case, I don't think everyone will agree, and explicitly establishing the freeness of this license by a GR would settle the issue for those who think it is about opinion. Cheers, -- Fabian Fagerholm <fabbe@paniq.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part