Adam McKenna writes: > As a legal excercise, maybe. Practically, it does not. Consider the > following two statements: > > If you don't have permission to make personal copies from the law (say, you > live in a jurisdiction that does not have the concept of fair use), then you > have to obey the license if you want to make personal copies. > > If you don't have permission to distribute copies from the law, then you have > to obey the license if you want to distribute copies. > > If the license said "make and distribute", then that would eliminate > statement #1. You could make personal copies without obeying the license.
If the license said "make and distribute", then that would exclude the technical measures restriction for personal copies -- it would not in itself let you make personal copies without obeying the license. > However, you still comply with the license if you make a personal copy that > is readable only by yourself (mode 0700). You would not be in violation of > the DRM clause because everyone who has possession of the copy (yourself) is > still able to read the copy and make further copies. This again assumes that the license clause only deals with copies that you distribute. From your earlier email: > If he puts the files on a multiuser system, but controls access to them with > file permissions, he still has not distributed the files. If he makes them > world readable, then he has made them available for distribution. The FDL says nothing about the technical measures restriction only applying to copies that are distributed or made "available for distribution". Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
