Raul Miller writes: > On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright. > > > > > > File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have > > > given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or you have not. > > > > Things like the execute bit, not to mention ACLs like those supported > > in AFS, NTFS, and other systems, make this claim transparently false. > > So don't do that.
So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these two operations: cp some-gfdl-licensed-document.txt ~/local-copy.txt chmod 0700 ~/local-copy.txt ? If you accept that file permissions are technical measures, the second step violates this provision of the GFDL: "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." I can even see an argument that is a computer owner's responsibility to make every GFDL-licensed package file on that computer world-readable, since the owner (or his agent) copied the document into /usr/share/doc. It would also be a violation of the GFDL for the computer's owner to restrict any user to a chroot environment, which is a rather clear violation of DFSG#9. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
