Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For example, taking some GFDL'd documentation, embedding > it in an executable, then making it available to users of a > multi-user system with read and write permissions disabled > (and only granting execute permissions) would constitute a > violation of the GFDL if additional steps were not also taken > to keep this legal (for example: granting users access to a debian > ftp archive).
Is parallel distribution of an uncontrolled copy acceptable? I don't see how that isn't controlling the controlled copy in a way that falls afoul of the licence. > But so what? We don't require that we protect users from ever > doing something bad. [...] We also require that licences don't try to stop users from ever doing something bad, such as operating nuclear missiles. > > > 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, ... [...] > In the specific case, I'm saying that such copying to L2 cache is not > covered by the GFDL. The GFDL does not specifically prohibit such > copying. The FDL would be a terrible licence for programs, but such copying is necessarily covered by copyright and the FDL covers it: it just leaves the defaults in place. (If English law defaults were changed badly on this, I'd probably agree with calling it a basket-case and ignoring much of it for the purposes of review here, as seemingly advocated.) > It's interesting that the U.K. will remove permissions that are present > without any explicit permission when explicit permission is granted, I think that's a misunderstanding, but irrelevant as you say. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
