Re: Amendment: GFDL is compatible with DFSG
Anton Zinoviev <anton@lml.bas.bg> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:39:41AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
>> > > In fact, the license says only this:
>> > >
>> > > You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the
>> > > reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute
>>
>> 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".
>
> Yes, they are.
>
>> They clearly obstruct and control the reading or further copying of
>> that copy.
>
> No, they can not. They can not control something that doesn't exist.
>
> If you do "chmod -r" then I am unable to read the file and there
> exists no reading to control.
Come on. If the directory is world (or just group) readable, there *is*
in fact something to read. Simply defining that every copy that cannot
be read is not there, and therefore not letting others read it is okay,
is just ridiculous.
> If you use some technical measures to make me able to read today but
> not tomorow a text you gave to me, then you would be controlling the
> reading. The encrypted file systems and "chmod -r" do not achieve
> this.
The clause was explicitly introduced to forbid distribution on a
particular type of encrypted file system, namely,
Digital-Rights-Management-enabled media. You are wrong.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Reply to: