Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Better yet, why don't we recognize that the phrase "technical measures" > has a very specific meaning when we're talking about copyright > protection? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
You're citing both wikipedia and USA law? That seems irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a credible supporting reference (because one could have written it oneself) and in I didn't find "technical measures" on that page at all. As to USA law, it's not just the USA we need be concerned about, because non-USAmericans are using the FDL and debian is distributed outside the USA. Free software should not just be free in the USA. On the 14th, I posted the EUCD (my local DMCA-like law) definition of the phrase to this thread's ancestor, which you seemed to refuse to consider and claimed it covers silly things like the atlantic ocean and brick walls if it covers file attributes! Sorry if I'm thick, but I find your argument utterly incomprehensible. [...] > > > Only when file permissions that you control are applied to copies > > > you distribute to someone else. If you've given someone else a > > > copy and they can't control the file permissions on a copy, that > > > would be a problem. > > > > Why is distribution important? It's a copyright licence, not a > > distribution licence: it covers making copies, too, and that's > > mentioned explicitly in that clause too. > > Ok, to put a fine point on it: only acts of copying which are regulated > by copyright law matter. Indeed. My non-distributed copying is regulated by copyright law, as I described under this Subject yesterday. So, I think distribution is not important and the prohibition of technical measures will apply to private copying in some situations. Hope that clarifies, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
