On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 02:48:20PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > With that reasoning, I would be allowed to make as many copies of my > WindowsXP CD's as my CD burner manages before it blows up in smoke, as > long as I don't let anybody else read them. I repeat: Claiming that a > copy doesn't matter just because you can't read it, and doing this when > discussing the specific clause that forbids to obstruct other's reading > of the copy, is just ridiculous.
I don't say the copy doesn't matter. I say that there is no process of reading the copy. Do I control your reading of the image on my videomonitor? Maybe I control you, but not your reading, because there is no reading at all. And yet my videomonitor is very real. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
