On 3/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
That's not what the GFDL says. The sentence in question begins "You may not use technical measures to ..." The subject of this sentence is you. The subject of this sentence is not "technical measures". > > > 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. The content of the copies is the material licensed under the GFDL. This is obvious from context. > I am not ignoring the rest of the sentence. However, I am not > rewriting the clause to comply with my imagination. I disagree with both of the assertions you've made here. > > > > 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. That's not an exact quote, but it's more exact than your earlier quote. > It reads: "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control > the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." If we're going to go into the exact quote game: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. I think it's clear from this context what kind of control it is talking about. > How doesn't that rule out making copies on devices that use > technical measures? That should be clear from the context. Dropping back to the beginning of that paragraph: "You may copy and distribute the Document ... provided ..." The license is talking about this process of copying and distributing the document. It's not talking about some other process. Control of other processes is outside the scope of the license. > 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? Ok. Here's the section in question: 2. VERBATIM COPYING You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3. You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies. This section is labeled verbatim copying. The fundamental concept of verbatim copying is: You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. The following sentences expand on this initial sentence, listing conditions which are imposed on this process. The sentence in question disallows you from using technical measures to which would interfere with other people's exercise of this process. Breaking the sentence down into little pieces: "You" This is who is subject to the conditions imposed by this sentence. Given the context, this is someone who is copying and distributing the Document. "may not use technical measures to" This is the condition being imposed. This is a constraint on how the person who is engaged in copying and distributing is allowed to go about this copying and distributing. "obstruct or control the" "Obstruct or control" is a variation on the theme of "add no other conditions". Other variations on this theme which are covered in this section include "accept compensation for" and "the conditions of section 3". "reading or further copying of the" "Reading or further copying" is a variation on the theme of "copy and distribute". Other variations covered in this section are lending and public display. "copies you make or distribute." This is a further constraint on the scope of this clause. If you're not responsible for the copies, you are in no way restricted by this clause. However, this final constraint is not the only constraint on this clause. The clause only applies in the context of copying and distributing the "Document", and only to ensure that conditions not imposed by the license are not imposed by you. We know this both from the immediate context, and from the expressed purpose of the license, stated in the preamble: The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. When the license disallows you from controlling copies, you have to take the expressed purpose of the license into account -- you may not impose some other purpose which conflicts with that of the license. The license itself does provide a secondary purpose: Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others. But this focuses on credit, and does not provide any basis for interpreting "control" as anything other than control of the process of copying and redistribution. > > 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. Taken in isolation, they're not. But, in context, they're all being used to talk about the concept of verbatim copying. > > 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. Please provide your reasoning for your claim that a user is not free to put their own copies on DRM media (as opposed to the claim that a user is not allowed to use DRM media to restrict other people's access to copies). Thanks, -- Raul
