On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:29:58 -0300 Humberto Massa wrote: > my suggestion: > > You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly > perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with > any technological measures that prevent the recipient > from exercising the rights granted to them by section > 8a and section 3 of this License, unless you also > offer to distribute, publicly display, publicly > perform or publicly digitally perform the Work for the > same recipient without those measures. > > The difference being only the words "offer to".
Yes, perhaps it's better to make it explicit.
But remember that, e.g., when the GPLv2 says "Accompany it with the
complete corresponding machine-readable source code" (clause 3a), it's
OK even if you do not force recipients of the binary to receive the
source too, as long as they have the opportunity to get both.
I think that "you also distribute" may be interpreted in a similar way:
it's OK even if you do not force recipients of the DRM-encumbered form
to receive the unencumbered form too, as long as they have the
opportunity to get both.
Anyway, as I said, it's maybe better to make it explicit...
P.S.: Please do not reply to me Cc:ing the list, as I would rather not
receiving replies twice. Reply to the list only, when you want to keep
the discussion public. Thanks.
P.P.S: Am I the only one that sees threads broken by Humberto's replies?
It seems that his MUA sometimes sets "In-Reply-To:" and "References:"
fields to the "Resent-Message-ID:" value of the message he's replying
to, rather than to its "Message-ID:" value...
Is this right? Is my MUA misbehaving as it seems it builds threads
without taking "Resent-Message-ID:" fields into account (i.e.: only
looking at "Message-ID:" values)?
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpJ0PH567zk9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
