Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 03:20:28PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > > I think I'm recognizing reality here. You were worried about > > distributing to schoolkids in Ghana. I'm showing that it isn't a > > problem. You don't have to like it, it is just the way things are. > > I don't want to see the DFCL used as a weapon against people who haven't > done anything ethically illegitimate.
I'm trying to think of a case where this might happen, but I can't. Especially since the license makes small scale copying an exception to a general rule. > > > I guess what this is drifting towards is that ever-misunderstood > > > "operating system" clause of the GPL: > > > > > > However, as a special exception, the source code distributed > > > need not include anything that is normally distributed (in > > > either source or binary form) with the major components > > > (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which > > > the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies > > > the executable. > > > > How about rewording it to say "operating system or hardware". > > It needs to be worded more broadly even than that. It's basically > anything on the chain of technology from distributor to consumer. The > information could be transmitted via all kinds of devices, encapsulated > into all sorts of protocols, carried over all kinds of media, etc. Any > one of these could have some sort of crazy intellectual property > restriction on it that isn't the fault of the distributor or consumer. > This exception needs to be worded so that it is completely neutral > regarding the means via which the content is transmitted or transported. > > The tricky bit is that sometimes the distributor *is* at fault in > constructing the intellectual property restrictions that have been > imposed on the network technologies. So we need to prevent the Big > Media company from taking DFCL-licensed content (like, say, a movie) > proprietary by putting cripplebits on it and then claiming "oh, we > didn't do that, our wholly owned cable network operator subsidiary did > that". You then go to the subsidiary and they say "oh, *we* didn't have > anything to do with that, you bought that Pay-per-View movie from our > parent corporation and they sent it to you by your request. We're just > a common carrier." I think that you're worrying too much here. In the case you're talking about, the media giant wouldn't have to produce the super-ultra-secret hardware that turns on the "no-copy" bit, but they would have to provide the "preferred form for modifications". The public still has free access to the movie. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
