On 3/25/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where > > a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available. > > The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly prohibited.
Only if these copies are are made available to people whose use would be controlled by the DRM. If you want to make copies on DRM-controlled media, that's fine. But you're not controlling your own access to the media this way. If you make the copies available to someone else, though, you should make sure that you're not imposing controls. > > If free parallel distribution is guaranteed to be available, > > relevant, and convenient, it's not clear to me how any technical > > measures could be said to be controlling the copying or reading > > of the material. > > The troublesome clause of the FDL says "of the copies" not "of the > material". Please try to use the licence, not random translations. > If the licence is worded incorrectly, that is still a problem that > needs fixing. You're nitpicking. "the material" is a phrase which refers to the content of the copies. Also, that's just a part of the sentence. Please don't ignore the rest of the sentence, which says what it is significant in the context of those copies. > > Anyways, what "field of use" is it that specifically concerns itself > > with limiting other people's rights to make copies of software? > > Use on DRM-only devices. Isn't a licence which effectively says > "you may not use this on $CLASS_OF_DEVICES" failing DFSG? That's not what it says. It says you are not allowed to use $CLASS_OF_DEVICES in ways that (obstruct or control) the (reading or further copying) of the copies you (make or distribute). It's probably worth noting that the word "or" here is not the logical or used in hardware and software design, but is instead the english word where two modes of expression are meant to describe the same concept. I recognize that by using the computer design "or" concept you can stretch the meaning of this sentence into something ludicrous (like the idea that your own exercise of free will constitutes control in the sense meant by the above sentence), but I haven't seen any solid reasoning that says that these ludicrous interpretations are valid. -- Raul
