On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 11:36:34AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > For what it's worth, I voted for Amendment B over the original text > because I am convinced that no court (at least in my legislation, I have > not much knowledge of others) would rule that someone has violated the > license because of chmod or similar - simply because it is the normal > state in the computer world, even on Windows systems, that stuff is > not-world readable. Or in other words because this restriction would > make the whole license void, and that can't be what the licensor > intended.
Huh? File permissions are just one example. The clause also prohibits distributing the work on a passworded FTP, and via HTTPS. These technical measures are generally used specifically and deliberately to control the reading of the copies I make, so unintended people can't get the file by logging into my FTP or sniffing network traffic. They're designed largely for that very purpose. This is prohibited from a straightforward reading of the license. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
