On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:47:34PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > Adam McKenna wrote: > >Put simply, file permissions control access, not the ability to read > >or copy. To be able to read or copy depends on having access, but it > >is not equivalent to having access. > If A depends on B then not doing/having B prevents A. > > If you are not allowed to prevent A, then you are thus not allowed to > not do/not have B. > > The GFDL says you are not allowed to use technological measures to > prevent reading the work. Reading the work requires having the +r file > permission set (as you stated above). Thus, you must have the +r file > permission set if file permissions are a technological measure. > > So, either file permissions are not a technological measure or the GFDL > prohibits not giving read permission.
Computers are technological. If someone doesn't have a computer, they won't be able to read the copy I give them. Does that mean that the GFDL obligates me to buy everyone in the world a computer? Obviously not. It does not even obligate me to make the copy available to whoever wants it (indeed, according to the license, I can charge a fee for providing a copy, and deny copies to those who are too poor to pay). Access controls only control who has access to a copy. They don't control who can make a copy. Only a current owner of a copy can make a copy. --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
