Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:25:59PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Still, the person making the private copy is not distributing to anyone. > > > So > > > as long as he doesn't employ a technological measure to prevent *himself* > > > from making further copies, he still complies with the license. > > > > I don't see that: it says 'make or distribute' not 'make and distribute'. > > What's the difference?
One has 'or' and the other has 'and'. Your lack of attention to detail is troubling. > If you don't have permission from the law to make copies, then you need to > follow the license terms. > > The license doesn't say that you have to give a copy of the document to > anyone who wants one. (Indeed, it even allows a monetary fee for the service > of copying). It says that you can't try to prevent the people you give > copies to from making further copies. No, the licence requires you 'not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.' It does not limit this to the people to whom you give copies. You can rewrite the licence if you wish, but that is not the licence being discussed now. Oh well, rewriting the anti-DRM makes a change from FDL supporters rewriting the description of the types of work it was designed for. http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2006-February/005511.html This licence is buggy and needs updating as soon as possible. -- 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]
