On 3/22/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
I'm not sure, I've not thought through that case. My point was: these cases only coincidentally involve the use of commonly used facilities. It's not the use of the facilities, in and of themselves, which are prohibited. > > 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. We require that licenses don't discriminate against fields of endeavor, but we have never considered "the right to distribute this free software in a non-free fashion" a field of endeavor. -- Raul
