> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act > On 3/19/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
You're looking for an exact spelling? I pointed you at the wikipedia because you seemed to be unfamiliar with the law itself. > 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. That doesn't make the law irrelevant. Incomplete, but not irrelevant. > 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! You seem to be referring to this post: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00194.html I did not say that the quoted definition refers to such things. I said that it would have to refer to such things to support the meaning you ascribed to it. Do you understand this distinction? > > > > 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, I'm not sure what you mean here. During the normal course of execution of a program, you need to make numerous copies of a program. One for memory, one for swap, one for L2 cache, numerous small ones for L1 cache, ... But this seems to be outside the scope of the disputed sentence in the GFDL -- control of these copies seems to make no sense because the control involved is not legal control and does not involve copy rights. At least, the GFDL makes no specific requirements about how the document is transcribed to L2 cache. The same goes for controlling the position of a copy on the shelf -- even if you use high tech devices, you're not dealing with any issue specified by the GFDL. At least not for any normal concept of "controlling the position of a copy on the shelf". The same goes for the "atlantic ocean" analogy. There's no copy right issues here. -- Raul
