Raul Miller writes: > On 17 Mar 2006 14:31:11 -0500, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Raul Miller writes: > > > On 3/15/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But I don't see why this should be considered a serious issue. > > > > It is a serious issue because the GFDL clause that MJ Ray quoted above > > is clearly not restricted to copies that you distribute. It says > > "copies that you make or distribute". > > But file permissions do not constitute a restriction on further copying > unless the copy with the file permissions is distributed.
File permissions surely do (obstruct or) control which users of the system may read (or further copy) the file. The GFDL is not written such that distribution of the copy is required for it to apply; to the contrary, the first paragraph of section 1 includes any form of copying that is reserved under copyright law. > Put differently: the GFDL does not extend the scope of copyright > law. Thus, it can not be taken to apply where copyright law does > not apply. Can you elaborate on where exactly copyright law no longer applies? This claim seems to be in tension with copyleft's requirement that derivative works (the creation of which are reserved under copyright law) use a compatible license. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
