Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 3/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On 3/25/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 ..."
That cuts it part-way through a phrase. > The subject of this sentence is you. > > The subject of this sentence is not "technical measures". The object of "use" is "technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute". This is a complete phrase itself. The subject of that phrase *is* "technical measures". My, isn't tactical syntax fun! [...] > > 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. The copyright is licensed, not the content of the copies. Please take a crash course on copyright: http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/crashcourse/ > > 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. Disagreement that I'm not ignoring something? That amounts to claiming telepathy and accusing me of lying, which suggests reasonable discussion may be over. I suppose the other "clear from the context" claims are clear from reading RMS's mind! [...] > > 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. This applies "and" in a computer design logic sense, rather than as the usual English sense of giving permission for both copying and distributing. I guess debian-legal has been bested by this in the past: does Raul Miller draft licences for UWashington, by any chance? Another process (copying without distributing) *is* within the scope of licences, being covered by copyright, as previously explained in Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > The sentence in question disallows you from using technical measures > to which would interfere with other people's exercise of this process. Prejudical assumption! > 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. According to this, the phrase breaks down to a structure: ((You) ; subject (may not use technical measures to) ; condition (obstruct or control the) ; like copy and distribute (reading or further copying of the) ; like verbatim copying (copies you make or distribute)). ; constraint Several of those breaks cut across clauses in my view, so I don't understand how that interpretation can make sense. I apologise if I have fluffed any grammar terminology. It has been many years since I last did this level of analysis and I wasn't very good at it then. > 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. We have little understanding of what "free" means for documents, much less this new lower standard of "effective freedom". The FSF has not produced a free document definition and apparently forbidding modification of part of the document still assures everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it with or without modifying it. It seems possible that copying to DRM-only media may be forbidden, from this context. [yet another context claim snipped ...] > > 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). I view it as most probably structured: ((You) ; subject (((may not) use) ; verb clause ((technical measures) ; object.subject (to obstruct or control) ; object.verb ((the reading or further copying) ; object.object.property (of) ; object.object.preposition ((the copies) ; object.object.owner.object (you) ; object.object.owner.subject (make or distribute)))))). ; object.object.owner.verb At the top level, it's a simple subject-verb-object structure. The object has its own subject-verb-object structure. The object's object is a property-preposition-owner and that owner is object-subject-verb. The property and two verbs in the top-level subject contain alternates. Now, let $DRMmedia be media that uses technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further of anything on it - agreed? Then, if we make a copy to it, the entire main object can be replaced by $DRMmedia and this clause has the effect "You may not use $DRMmedia". Hope that explains, -- 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]
