On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:05PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: [...] > > > MJ quoted the EUCD's definition of "technological measure" and you > > > have not explained why you think that should be ignored. > > > > I did, in the part of the e-mail you snipped. > > Yow! We should ignore recent copyright law?!? I strongly disagree with > that. I don't like copyright law, but - like angry predator animals - > it's dangerously negligent for us to ignore it totally.
We can ignore it for your chmod example, because chmod is not a techical measure that controls copying. It's a technical measure that controls access. > I'm in disbelief that some seem willing to base licence interpretations > on finding hidden "implicit" meanings[1]. I'm in disbelief that people participating on a board called "debian-legal" would take one sentence from a license, read it without considering the context or any of the the other text in the license, and declare it non-free. Do you think that this is how courts work in real life? --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
