Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Read in English, naturally by a native speaker, the license clearly > >> applies restrictions against "chmod", etc, and the above > >> interpretation does not come from the license. > > > > I agree on both counts. Yet rather than taking the GR to mean that > > restrictions against chmod are OK in general, I think the GR says that > > the GFDL should not be taken to imply restrictions against chmod. If > > that leads to using an interpretaion that does not come from the > > license, then so be it - it's a lesser evil than deciding that free > > software does not need to be chmodable. > > 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.
I could see it being used against a service that provides priority downloads for a fee. The problem isn't that a court will rule that chmod is not allowed. The problem is that there is a large spectrum of actions which are not allowed by the license, and you have no way of knowing what is actually ok to do. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
