On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:29:24PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > > 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? [...] > > Only if you are arguing that the FDL clause's meaning of technological > measures is different to the law's meaning. In that case, the clause is > a lawyerbomb rather than clearly failing DFSG and I still dislike it.
I don't think it's a 'lawyerbomb'. In order to sue, the FSF would need to have been damaged in some way and be able to prove damages. What damages would they have in this case? I guess they could sue to enforce compliance of the license, assuming they interpret it the same way you do, but it would be a serious waste of time and money. > > 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. > > So the users of my machines are taking ownership of my original data now, > or am I giving them copies by letting them use my computer, or what? By keeping your copy in a world readable directory, you are offering them copies. The computer provides a facility for them to request and obtain copies automatically, without your involvement. That does not change the fact that distribution is taking place, with you as the distributor. --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
