Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 03:57:50PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > > Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 03:10:25PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > > > > I think that once we get into this kind of large scale copying, > > > > requiring people to offer machine readable source is not too onerous. > > > > Otherwise, it isn't really a copyleft anymore. > > > > > > And very small-scale copying is difficult to audit anyway. So a > > > GPL-style requirement shouldn't be a problem, then? > > > > I think that Andrew Suffield and others are looking for some legal > > assurance that small-scale copying is OK. I'm sure they appreciate > > the realities of enforcement as well as you or I. > > Yes, but it's probably too difficult to express this exception in legal > terms. The GNU GPL doesn't, while RMS is on record as saying that the > FSF doesn't care about small-scale file swapping among private > individuals[1], but rather about systematic infringement.
My guess as to why RMS didn't put a small scale swapping exception is that some incredibly expensive programs don't have many copies made. I don't think that is a problem with documents since they are, as a rule, pretty easy to reverse engineer. > If this issue is too hard for the GPL to wrestle with I suggest we not > do so either, though I do have a "Fair Use Acklowledgement" clause in > mind that I'd like to work into our license, which *may* serve as the > type of reassurance that Mr. Suffield is looking for. > > Something like: > > * No condition of this license shall be construed in such a way as to > challenge or prohibit reverse-engineering or any Fair Use exception to > copyright law. Please don't do something like that. The DMCA has something like this, and it hasn't been too useful. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
