On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:02:25PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > > > > 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.
The copy _is_ there but there exists no reading, so there is nothing to control. I mean there is no reading of the copy, the directory can be read but it is obviously not covered by GFDL. > > 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. OK. That was just an example. If I give you handheld that allows you to read the Glibc manual only today but not tomorow then I would be in violation of the license. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
