Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 3/26/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > > > 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! > > Yes, the phrase you've identified is the object of the sentence. > > However, regardless of the structure of the phrase, it's not a complete > sentence in and of itself.
However, "technical measures" is the subject of the subclause, to which other verbs apply. [...] > > > 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/ > > That's why I used the word "under" -- to show the relationship between > the material and the copyright which has been licensed. > > Or are you trying to suggest that somehow there is copyrighted > material which is not associated with the copyright for that > material? If so, you've totally lost me. I'm suggesting that the copyright of the work is licensed and it is that copyright which would be infringed by copying to any copy-controlled device, regardless of what other legal copies happen to be in its neighbourhood. [...] > > > 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! > > No telepathy is required -- I'm saying that what you wrote seems > to ignore parts of that sentence, and seems to include content > which is not included in the license. Which is not the previous offensive claim, but rest assured that here I am working from the licence and applicable local law. [...] > > does Raul Miller draft licences for UWashington, by any chance? > > No, I have not, and I find the suggestion insulting. Sorry, but I see quibbling over the meanings of 'or' and 'and' as a move straight from the PINE Licence-Retcon-HOWTO. [...] > And, I'll grant that the concept of "copy and distribute" is fuzzier than > the binary meaning if you'll also grant that the concept of reading or > further copying is also fuzzier than the binary meaning. I don't understand this request - they mean what they mean - and I am disappointed by what looks like horse-trading of truthfulness. > > Another process (copying without distributing) *is* within the scope of > > licences, being covered by copyright, as previously explained in > > Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I believe you're referring to: > > 50C. [...] Rather, the equivalent for other literary works (s28A IIRC BICBW). > But I don't see any reason to think that the sentence in question > is a prohibition in the context of personal use. It does not seem to be limited to the context of non-personal use. > The best > argument in favor of treating that sentence as a prohibition > seems to rely on totally binary handling of the terms "and" and "or", I think it relies only on usual English-language meaning of them. > seems to conflict with the stated purpose of the document, and The stated purpose is ambiguous and its main sponsor refused to clarify. > seems rely on reasoning which leads to ludicrous conclusions > (like: you can't carry a GFDLed document on a plane, and you > are not legally allowed to edit a document at wikipedia.org, since > both of these involve the use of "control" and "technical measures" > in the context of people making copies of a GFDL licensed document). Those ludicrous conclusions do not follow logically from the claim, for such reasons as simple plane carriage not being a technical measure under the relevant definitions presented here so far. > > 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 > > Yes, except I'd call what I wrote a description rather > than a structure. How do you perceive its structure? > > Several of those breaks cut across clauses in my view, so I > > don't understand how that interpretation can make sense. > > I was talking about the themes being discussed, not the > structure of the sentence. Does that help? So, you are seeking to interpret the spirit of the clause, rather than the letter of it? [Raul Miller wrote:] > > > 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". [...] > > I think we can agree, however, that the GFDL is meant to allow people > to read copies of GFDL'd documents, even on computer systems where > reading can be thought of as making new copies which technically > are being controlled in various fashions (such as position on the > screen, or in the file system). > > Can we agree that far? I'm not sure. It is not clear whether the FDL is meant to allow reading of copies on devices where copying is controlled by technical measures, or where the boundary of the anti-TPM clause was meant to be. RMS was going to ask a lawyer, then clammed up. Further, I am not sure whether those examples are such measures. > Or are you trying to claim that the GFDL disallows this, even though > the sentence you would base such a claim on explicitly disallows > such restrictions? I don't understand this three-line question, but I think so. I am claiming that the FDL does not permit copying to devices that require technical measures that obstruct or control further copying. [...] > > Now, let $DRMmedia be media that uses technical measures to obstruct > > or control the reading or further of anything on it - agreed? > > I don't agree -- I think this statement is overly vague. How would others define $DRMmedia? -- 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]
