(I think this sub-thread is heading off on a tangent, I've cut a bunch of material which seems to lead nowhere significant. If I cut something important, please feel free to correct me.)
On 3/27/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. I'm asking that grammatical rules be applied consistently. > > > 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). I don't see any coverage of 28A in the message you referred to. If this distinction is important, please elaborate? > > 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. Which definitions would those be? (Note: I've said a few more things about definitions of this phrase further down.) > [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. Can we agree that the FDL prohibits people who make copies from obstructing other people from reading copies? > > 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. I'm going to assume our problem here has to do with the definition of "technical measures" that you're using. Somehow, you've excluded "power switch" as a relevant technical measure, where I see no reason to make such an exclusion. From my point of view your response here makes no sense, because you're drawing what looks to me like non-distinctions. But I can see that you think these are real distinctions, presumably based in some other distinction (about what "technical measures" are). But my understanding of the other distinction would eliminate this entire train of argument. Here's the definitions of "Technical measures" which I consider plausible: 1) "Technical measures" are "measures which, by law, the user is not allowed to bypass them, and which are specifically intended to enforce copyrights." 2) "Technical measures" are anything which fits the usual english meanings of these words: http://www.answers.com/technical http://www.answers.com/measures Neither seem to fit your argument. -- Raul
