On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 06:35:27PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: > 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.
Right, unless the copy was a fair use. > > 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: No, it can't assume that, because I'm specifically talking about undistributed copies. > > 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". I agree. What I am saying is that, in order to violate the license, technical measures applied to documents that have not been distributed need to prevent the user of the documents from reading or making further copies. File permissions do not do that. (Unless the user purposely sets permissions so that he himself may not read the files. I guess in that case, he could sue himself for access. Or maybe the FSF could sue him in order to force him to restore access to himself.) --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
