Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:39:41AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> On Sunday 22 January 2006 16:45, Anton Zinoviev wrote: >> > > In fact, the license says only this: >> > > >> > > You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the >> > > reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute >> >> Did any of you actually *read* this? Read it. >> >> What it actually *says*, means that storing a copy on a multiuser >> machine with UNIX permissions set so that it can't be read by >> everyone is *prohibited*. >> >> The permissions are clearly a "technical measure". > > Yes, they are. > >> They clearly obstruct and control the reading or further copying of >> that copy. > > No, they can not. They can not control something that doesn't exist. > > If you do "chmod -r" then I am unable to read the file and there > exists no reading to control.
Come on. If the directory is world (or just group) readable, there *is* in fact something to read. Simply defining that every copy that cannot be read is not there, and therefore not letting others read it is okay, is just ridiculous. > If you use some technical measures to make me able to read today but > not tomorow a text you gave to me, then you would be controlling the > reading. The encrypted file systems and "chmod -r" do not achieve > this. The clause was explicitly introduced to forbid distribution on a particular type of encrypted file system, namely, Digital-Rights-Management-enabled media. You are wrong. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
