Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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.
Rather, if the reading or further copying of those copies is controlled by the DRM. Please stop changing the FDL's wording to fit your argument. [...] > > 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. However, the content of the copies is not named. The copies are. Objecting to replacing one thing with another is hardly nitpicking. It changes the sense of the clause. > 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. I am not ignoring the rest of the sentence. However, I am not rewriting the clause to comply with my imagination. > > > 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). That's not what it says. It reads: "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." How doesn't that rule out making copies on devices that use technical measures? I don't see how you translate that to your meaning. Please can you give a step-by-step mutation, with references to support the non-obvious changes of meaning? > 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 don't think "obstruct" and "control", or "reading" and "further copying" are descriptions of the same concepts. > 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. I am using a usual English meaning of "or", regardless of any computer design concepts. I am not stretching the meaning. I am not basing my arguments on alternative wordings and random changes to the licence wording, unlike some. I haven't seen any explanation to support these absurd rewordings. So, I prefer to follow the licence wording as I understand it for now. -- 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]
