On 3/26/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote: > > 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. > [...] > > I think it's clear from this context what kind of control it is > > talking about. > [...] > > The clause only applies in the context of copying and > ^^^ > > distributing the "Document", > > This is (one) of the critical errors in this clause. This clause > appears to attempt to control copies that you make even if you don't > distribute them. This occurs because the first sentence talks about > copies which are made and distributed, and the second talks about > copies that are just made and not necessarily distributed.
I think that's because of issues of agency, not because of non-copyright issues. I find it hard to believe that this license has any relevance in the context of non-copyright issues (issues of use which have not been specifically enumerated by either copyright law or the license). > > 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 ability for anyone to make a copy of the works that you have > presumably follows directly from the preamble, so either reading of > the clause in question is compatible with it. No. People can only make copies based on copies they have. Freedom to make copies does not give you the right to invade someone else's home, office, or computer. Maybe you're arguing that freedom to make copies SHOULD give you the right to invade someone else's home, office or computer. If so, I'm not going to debate that issue with you, except to point out that I doubt you'll get a judge to agree with you. > [It seems clear that the clause was never intended to cover the > restrictions that it is covering, but nevertheless it appears to do > so. The resolutions to this clause that I've talked about have all > involved actually fixing it instead of claiming that there's no > problem with it.] I'll agree that other phrasings of this clause could be better. Thanks, -- Raul
