Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Ken Arromdee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Walter Landry wrote: These examples give partial specifications, not full specifications. I see no reason to read the GFDL as requiring only partial specifications. What's the difference between full specification for A, which is a subset of B and partial specification of B, other than semantics? The big difference is lack of clarity. We know what B is (word documents, say), but if what A is is unclear (a word document using some subset of possible (combinations of) formatting commands?), we're in a lot worse situation because we can't necessarily straightforwardly say for a given document whether or not it's in A. Ultimately, answering this question in a given case is likely to require comparing the output of the full specification (B) with the partial (A). Which means that you're likely to need the full specification (B) for QA purposes even if, technically, the document in question only uses A. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/30/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3/27/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? For example, the expression technological measures means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject-matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC. [EUCD (2001/29/EC) Article 6 (3)] Excellent, I can agree with this definition. So how is it that chmod fits this definition while a wooden door, or a power switch, does not? None were designed to prevent copyright violation. All have some rudimentary ability to prevent copies from being made by someone. Can we agree that the FDL prohibits people who make copies from obstructing other people from reading copies? No. The FDL prohibits some types of copying, not people. If you meant to address the question I asked (rather than the first seven words of the question), could you rephrase that? http://www.answers.com/technical http://www.answers.com/measures I don't believe that's the sense in the FDL. If it were, far more things would be restricted. I think FDL uses an EUCD-like meaning. Either way, using that definition still leads one to conclude the FDL is not usable for free software. If you wish to argue for that definition, you are arguing even more strongly than I am that FDL is unsuitable for main! Hence, I cannot understand your support for FDL on this topic. This interpretation which argues even more strongly ... that the FDL is unsuitable for main is also contradicted by the obvious meaning of the GFDL. So that interpretation must be flawed. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/26/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you are distributing both, then the XML file is Transparent and the word file is opaque. My point was that the word file is never Transparent. I am not saying that the word file can not be distributed, but that it is never Transparent. I found out yesterday that there is an xml format which is a word format. In Word 2003, use the Save As... dialog -- it's the second option on the drop down list for file formats. More specifically, word format means that Word has a document object which it serializes into a file. One of the mechanisms it has for doing so results in an xml file. And, of course, it's perfectly capable of reading these files, and as far as I know you don't lose any features of word with this file format. Plus, of course, you can edit these things with a generic text editor. But this brings up another issue -- I don't think we should accept any such .xml document into Debian main unless we also have a suitable editor (perhaps open office) to support editing that specific content. Otherwise, we'd be introducing a dependency on non-free software (regardless of whether or not that dependency was explicitly presented in the package headers). -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/28/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Worst case, you could read the open office source code to figure out how [some of] these documents are stored. These examples give partial specifications, not full specifications. I see no reason to read the GFDL as requiring only partial specifications. The GFDL requires that the format for the copy be represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public. It does not require that everything generated by some editor be available. If we're talking about Word, the editor, instead of the formats native to that editor: the editor can save documents in a wide variety of formats, some of which are transparent. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Walter Landry wrote: These examples give partial specifications, not full specifications. I see no reason to read the GFDL as requiring only partial specifications. What's the difference between full specification for A, which is a subset of B and partial specification of B, other than semantics? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/27/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote: I find it hard to believe that this license has any relevance in the context of non-copyright issues (issues of use which have not been specifically enumerated by either copyright law or the license). That's an open question, and necessarily jurisdiction dependent. Considering the fact the GFDL isn't as restrictive as some licenses which outlaw forms of use which have not been overturned, I don't think it's a conservative position to claim that the GFDL doesn't restrict that form of use. Have not been overturned is not the same thing as have been upheld. Another problem here is that these outside the scope of copyright law conflict with statements within the GFDL (including the very same sentence in question). Freedom to make copies does not give you the right to invade someone else's home, office, or computer. It's quite within the pervue of the copyright holder to require that a condition of you having a work is to allow anyone who wants to to make a copy of that work, and not place technological barriers to that occuring. I'm not arguing that this requirement is reasonable, desirable or even compatible with Free Software. Indeed, I'm asserting quite the opposite. So, given that the UK is the jurisdiction where we're told this is a significant issue, if I put on a web page a copyright notice requiring that anyone making any copies of the web page for any purpose whatsoever must allow anyone to enter their home, business or place where the computer is installed at any time with no restrictions for the purpose of making further copies of this web page. It seems to me that the claim about the GFDL is equivalent to saying that the above license is valid. In essence, the claim is that a person who brings a copyrighted work into a computer (which operates by making further copies) has completely surrendered any right to privacy, as the copyright holder can require that anyone in the entire world have access to that computer for the purpose of making further copies. What we're discussing here is what the clause in the GFDL says, not what a Free Software license should be doing. That's fine, but we're also discussing copyright law, and claims are being made which seem to conflict with the nature of copyright law. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
(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
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/26/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can give you a simple example, however, of a case where [with caveats] word format is suitable: some drawings could be saved in some word format if the version of word in question is widely available, Why does it matter whether the version of word is widely available? I'm not sure why you're asking this. Have you read the GFDL? If not, try searching for the string widely available. Ah, yes. I had missed that text and paint programs must be generic, while drawing programs need only be widely available. If you were familiar with that part of the GFDL (it's the section on transparent formats), could you elaborate on what you're asking about? and if there is a command line program that will convert those drawings to postscript. The ability to convert the drawing to postscript (which will probably be lossy) does not affect whether the original word format is Transparent. That's an interesting assertion. But I'm not sure why I should believe your assertion. Perhaps you could elaborate? The GFDL requires you to be able to edit the transparent copy straightforwardly. Requiring a separate conversion step is not straightforward, even if it is lossless and bi-directional. If the editor does the conversion back and forth for you, then it is straightforward. Another example where word format is ok to distribute involves a simple word-xml-word translation facility where both the word format and the xml format are distributed. If you are distributing both, then the XML file is Transparent and the word file is opaque. My point was that the word file is never Transparent. I am not saying that the word file can not be distributed, but that it is never Transparent. That would depend on what kind of content is in the word file, wouldn't it? I concede that if it is a drawing and that the specifications are publicly available (which is not true for most word documents), then it could be transparent. So I retract the statement that the word format is _never_ transparent. As an aside, I seem to remember a number of programs which can deal with word format to varying degrees (three that come to mind are catdoc (GPL), mswordview (GPL/LGPL) and openoffice (PDL/LGPL), but I'm sure there are others). Only the last one can edit the file. The other two are lossy converters. And openoffice is definitely not a generic text editor. I was addressing a different aspect of the GFDL's transparent format issue -- the part that says ...represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public... While I've not cared enough about this issue to study the format, there are some indications that a specification of the format for some word documents either is available to the public, or could be made available to the public. Worst case, you could read the open office source code to figure out how [some of] these documents are stored. These examples give partial specifications, not full specifications. I see no reason to read the GFDL as requiring only partial specifications. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/26/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can give you a simple example, however, of a case where [with caveats] word format is suitable: some drawings could be saved in some word format if the version of word in question is widely available, Why does it matter whether the version of word is widely available? I'm not sure why you're asking this. Have you read the GFDL? If not, try searching for the string widely available. If you were familiar with that part of the GFDL (it's the section on transparent formats), could you elaborate on what you're asking about? and if there is a command line program that will convert those drawings to postscript. The ability to convert the drawing to postscript (which will probably be lossy) does not affect whether the original word format is Transparent. That's an interesting assertion. But I'm not sure why I should believe your assertion. Perhaps you could elaborate? Another example where word format is ok to distribute involves a simple word-xml-word translation facility where both the word format and the xml format are distributed. If you are distributing both, then the XML file is Transparent and the word file is opaque. My point was that the word file is never Transparent. I am not saying that the word file can not be distributed, but that it is never Transparent. That would depend on what kind of content is in the word file, wouldn't it? As an aside, I seem to remember a number of programs which can deal with word format to varying degrees (three that come to mind are catdoc (GPL), mswordview (GPL/LGPL) and openoffice (PDL/LGPL), but I'm sure there are others). Only the last one can edit the file. The other two are lossy converters. And openoffice is definitely not a generic text editor. I was addressing a different aspect of the GFDL's transparent format issue -- the part that says ...represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public... While I've not cared enough about this issue to study the format, there are some indications that a specification of the format for some word documents either is available to the public, or could be made available to the public. Worst case, you could read the open office source code to figure out how [some of] these documents are stored. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/26/06, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote: If we're going to go into the exact quote game: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. [...] I think it's clear from this context what kind of control it is talking about. [...] The clause only applies in the context of copying and ^^^ distributing the Document, This is (one) of the critical errors in this clause. This clause appears to attempt to control copies that you make even if you don't distribute them. This occurs because the first sentence talks about copies which are made and distributed, and the second talks about copies that are just made and not necessarily distributed. I think that's because of issues of agency, not because of non-copyright issues. I find it hard to believe that this license has any relevance in the context of non-copyright issues (issues of use which have not been specifically enumerated by either copyright law or the license). We know this both from the immediate context, and from the expressed purpose of the license, stated in the preamble: The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document free in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. 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. The ability for anyone to make a copy of the works that you have presumably follows directly from the preamble, so either reading of the clause in question is compatible with it. No. People can only make copies based on copies they have. Freedom to make copies does not give you the right to invade someone else's home, office, or computer. Maybe you're arguing that freedom to make copies SHOULD give you the right to invade someone else's home, office or computer. If so, I'm not going to debate that issue with you, except to point out that I doubt you'll get a judge to agree with you. [It seems clear that the clause was never intended to cover the restrictions that it is covering, but nevertheless it appears to do so. The resolutions to this clause that I've talked about have all involved actually fixing it instead of claiming that there's no problem with it.] I'll agree that other phrasings of this clause could be better. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly prohibited. Only if these copies are are made available to people whose use would be controlled by the DRM. Rather, if the reading or further copying of those copies is controlled by the DRM. Please stop changing the FDL's wording to fit your argument. That's not what the GFDL says. The sentence in question begins You may not use technical measures to ... That cuts it part-way through a phrase. That's because I'm trying to allude to the contents of the rest of the sentence. This is also why I used an ellipses rather than simply a closing quote. 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, the content of the copies is not named. The copies are. Objecting to replacing one thing with another is hardly nitpicking. It changes the sense of the clause. 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 am not ignoring the rest of the sentence. However, I am not rewriting the clause to comply with my imagination. 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. If you're going to require that I accept your paraphrases as fact, without any supporting arguments, then you're right that we're not having a reasonable discussion. Note also that I have been known to change my mind about things in the past -- even about things I've argued for with considerable energy and interest. How doesn't that rule out making copies on devices that use technical measures? That should be clear from the context. Dropping back to the beginning of that paragraph: You may copy and distribute the Document ... provided ... The license is talking about this process of copying and distributing the document. It's not talking about some other process. Control of other processes is outside the scope of the license. This applies and in a computer design logic sense, rather than as the usual English sense of giving permission for both copying and distributing. I guess debian-legal has been bested by this in the past: does Raul Miller draft licences for UWashington, by any chance? No, I have not, and I find the suggestion insulting. Also, I feel that the UW stipulations about the historical PINE license are incorrect -- and that we're not distributing PINE more because we don't think it's worth the bother -- and more generally because we don't like working with hostile authors -- than because we think they have a valid legal position. 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. 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.-(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to copy or adapt it, provided that the copying or adapting- (a) is necessary for his lawful use; and (b) is not prohibited under any term or condition of an agreement regulating the circumstances in which his use is lawful. But I don't see any reason to think that the sentence in question is a prohibition in the context of personal use. The best argument in favor of
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote: I find it hard to believe that this license has any relevance in the context of non-copyright issues (issues of use which have not been specifically enumerated by either copyright law or the license). That's an open question, and necessarily jurisdiction dependent. Considering the fact the GFDL isn't as restrictive as some licenses which outlaw forms of use which have not been overturned, I don't think it's a conservative position to claim that the GFDL doesn't restrict that form of use. Freedom to make copies does not give you the right to invade someone else's home, office, or computer. It's quite within the pervue of the copyright holder to require that a condition of you having a work is to allow anyone who wants to to make a copy of that work, and not place technological barriers to that occuring. I'm not arguing that this requirement is reasonable, desirable or even compatible with Free Software. Indeed, I'm asserting quite the opposite. What we're discussing here is what the clause in the GFDL says, not what a Free Software license should be doing. Don Armstrong -- You have many years to live--do things you will be proud to remember when you are old. -- Shinka proverb. (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar p413) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
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
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available. The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly prohibited. Only if these copies are are made available to people whose use would be controlled by the DRM. Rather, if the reading or further copying of those copies is controlled by the DRM. Please stop changing the FDL's wording to fit your argument. [...] The troublesome clause of the FDL says of the copies not of the material. Please try to use the licence, not random translations. If the licence is worded incorrectly, that is still a problem that needs fixing. You're nitpicking. the material is a phrase which refers to the content of the copies. However, the content of the copies is not named. The copies are. Objecting to replacing one thing with another is hardly nitpicking. It changes the sense of the clause. Also, that's just a part of the sentence. Please don't ignore the rest of the sentence, which says what it is significant in the context of those copies. I am not ignoring the rest of the sentence. However, I am not rewriting the clause to comply with my imagination. Anyways, what field of use is it that specifically concerns itself with limiting other people's rights to make copies of software? Use on DRM-only devices. Isn't a licence which effectively says you may not use this on $CLASS_OF_DEVICES failing DFSG? That's not what it says. It says you are not allowed to use $CLASS_OF_DEVICES in ways that (obstruct or control) the (reading or further copying) of the copies you (make or distribute). That's not what it says. It reads: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. How doesn't that rule out making copies on devices that use technical measures? I don't see how you translate that to your meaning. Please can you give a step-by-step mutation, with references to support the non-obvious changes of meaning? It's probably worth noting that the word or here is not the logical or used in hardware and software design, but is instead the english word where two modes of expression are meant to describe the same concept. I don't think obstruct and control, or reading and further copying are descriptions of the same concepts. I recognize that by using the computer design or concept you can stretch the meaning of this sentence into something ludicrous (like the idea that your own exercise of free will constitutes control in the sense meant by the above sentence), but I haven't seen any solid reasoning that says that these ludicrous interpretations are valid. I am using a usual English meaning of or, regardless of any computer design concepts. I am not stretching the meaning. I am not basing my arguments on alternative wordings and random changes to the licence wording, unlike some. I haven't seen any explanation to support these absurd rewordings. So, I prefer to follow the licence wording as I understand it for now. -- 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]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available. The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly prohibited. Only if these copies are are made available to people whose use would be controlled by the DRM. Rather, if the reading or further copying of those copies is controlled by the DRM. Please stop changing the FDL's wording to fit your argument. That's not what the GFDL says. The sentence in question begins You may not use technical measures to ... The subject of this sentence is you. The subject of this sentence is not technical measures. The troublesome clause of the FDL says of the copies not of the material. Please try to use the licence, not random translations. If the licence is worded incorrectly, that is still a problem that needs fixing. You're nitpicking. the material is a phrase which refers to the content of the copies. However, the content of the copies is not named. The copies are. Objecting to replacing one thing with another is hardly nitpicking. It changes the sense of the clause. The content of the copies is the material licensed under the GFDL. This is obvious from context. I am not ignoring the rest of the sentence. However, I am not rewriting the clause to comply with my imagination. I disagree with both of the assertions you've made here. Anyways, what field of use is it that specifically concerns itself with limiting other people's rights to make copies of software? Use on DRM-only devices. Isn't a licence which effectively says you may not use this on $CLASS_OF_DEVICES failing DFSG? That's not what it says. It says you are not allowed to use $CLASS_OF_DEVICES in ways that (obstruct or control) the (reading or further copying) of the copies you (make or distribute). That's not what it says. That's not an exact quote, but it's more exact than your earlier quote. It reads: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. If we're going to go into the exact quote game: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. I think it's clear from this context what kind of control it is talking about. How doesn't that rule out making copies on devices that use technical measures? That should be clear from the context. Dropping back to the beginning of that paragraph: You may copy and distribute the Document ... provided ... The license is talking about this process of copying and distributing the document. It's not talking about some other process. Control of other processes is outside the scope of the license. I don't see how you translate that to your meaning. Please can you give a step-by-step mutation, with references to support the non-obvious changes of meaning? Ok. Here's the section in question: 2. VERBATIM COPYING You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3. You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies. This section is labeled verbatim copying. The fundamental concept of verbatim copying is: You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. The following sentences expand on this initial sentence, listing conditions which are imposed on this process. The sentence in question disallows you from using technical measures to which would interfere with other people's exercise of this process. Breaking the sentence down into little pieces: You This is who is subject to the conditions imposed by this sentence. Given the context, this is someone who is copying and distributing the Document. may not use technical measures to This is the condition being imposed. This is a constraint
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/21/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Second off, you've not convinced me that the GFDL never allows the use of word format (I'll grant that such allowance would come with caveats about as strong as those necessary for your example). I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Could you enumerate those caveats? No, there's too many potential cases for me to enumerate all potential caveats. I can give you a simple example, however, of a case where [with caveats] word format is suitable: some drawings could be saved in some word format if the version of word in question is widely available, Why does it matter whether the version of word is widely available? and if there is a command line program that will convert those drawings to postscript. The ability to convert the drawing to postscript (which will probably be lossy) does not affect whether the original word format is Transparent. Another example where word format is ok to distribute involves a simple word-xml-word translation facility where both the word format and the xml format are distributed. If you are distributing both, then the XML file is Transparent and the word file is opaque. My point was that the word file is never Transparent. I am not saying that the word file can not be distributed, but that it is never Transparent. As an aside, I seem to remember a number of programs which can deal with word format to varying degrees (three that come to mind are catdoc (GPL), mswordview (GPL/LGPL) and openoffice (PDL/LGPL), but I'm sure there are others). Only the last one can edit the file. The other two are lossy converters. And openoffice is definitely not a generic text editor. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote: If we're going to go into the exact quote game: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. ^^ [...] I think it's clear from this context what kind of control it is talking about. [...] The clause only applies in the context of copying and ^^^ distributing the Document, This is (one) of the critical errors in this clause. This clause appears to attempt to control copies that you make even if you don't distribute them. This occurs because the first sentence talks about copies which are made and distributed, and the second talks about copies that are just made and not necessarily distributed. We know this both from the immediate context, and from the expressed purpose of the license, stated in the preamble: The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document free in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. 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. The ability for anyone to make a copy of the works that you have presumably follows directly from the preamble, so either reading of the clause in question is compatible with it. [It seems clear that the clause was never intended to cover the restrictions that it is covering, but nevertheless it appears to do so. The resolutions to this clause that I've talked about have all involved actually fixing it instead of claiming that there's no problem with it.] Don Armstrong -- If you have the slightest bit of intellectual integrity you cannot support the government. -- anonymous http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3/26/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly prohibited. Only if these copies are are made available to people whose use would be controlled by the DRM. Rather, if the reading or further copying of those copies is controlled by the DRM. Please stop changing the FDL's wording to fit your argument. That's not what the GFDL says. The sentence in question begins You may not use technical measures to ... That cuts it part-way through a phrase. 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! [...] However, the content of the copies is not named. The copies are. Objecting to replacing one thing with another is hardly nitpicking. It changes the sense of the clause. 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/ I am not ignoring the rest of the sentence. However, I am not rewriting the clause to comply with my imagination. 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! [...] How doesn't that rule out making copies on devices that use technical measures? That should be clear from the context. Dropping back to the beginning of that paragraph: You may copy and distribute the Document ... provided ... The license is talking about this process of copying and distributing the document. It's not talking about some other process. Control of other processes is outside the scope of the license. This applies and in a computer design logic sense, rather than as the usual English sense of giving permission for both copying and distributing. I guess debian-legal has been bested by this in the past: does Raul Miller draft licences for UWashington, by any chance? Another process (copying without distributing) *is* within the scope of licences, being covered by copyright, as previously explained in Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] The sentence in question disallows you from using technical measures to which would interfere with other people's exercise of this process. Prejudical assumption! Breaking the sentence down into little pieces: You This is who is subject to the conditions imposed by this sentence. Given the context, this is someone who is copying and distributing the Document. may not use technical measures to This is the condition being imposed. This is a constraint on how the person who is engaged in copying and distributing is allowed to go about this copying and distributing. obstruct or control the Obstruct or control is a variation on the theme of add no other conditions. Other variations on this theme which are covered in this section include accept compensation for and the conditions of section 3. reading or further copying of the Reading or further copying is a variation on the theme of copy and distribute. Other variations covered in this section are lending and public display. copies you make or distribute. This is a further constraint on the scope of this clause. If you're not responsible for the copies, you are in no way restricted by this clause. 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 Several of those breaks cut across clauses in my view, so I don't understand how that interpretation can make sense. I apologise if I have fluffed any grammar terminology. It has been many years since I last did this level of analysis and I wasn't very good at it then. However, this final constraint is not the only constraint on this clause. The clause only applies in the context of copying and distributing the Document, and only to ensure that conditions not imposed by the license are not imposed by you. We know this both from the immediate context, and from the expressed purpose of the license, stated in the preamble: The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook,
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available. The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly prohibited. If free parallel distribution is guaranteed to be available, relevant, and convenient, it's not clear to me how any technical measures could be said to be controlling the copying or reading of the material. The troublesome clause of the FDL says of the copies not of the material. Please try to use the licence, not random translations. If the licence is worded incorrectly, that is still a problem that needs fixing. Anyways, what field of use is it that specifically concerns itself with limiting other people's rights to make copies of software? Use on DRM-only devices. Isn't a licence which effectively says you may not use this on $CLASS_OF_DEVICES failing DFSG? -- 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]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/25/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available. The copying to the DRM-controlled media seems expressly prohibited. Only if these copies are are made available to people whose use would be controlled by the DRM. If you want to make copies on DRM-controlled media, that's fine. But you're not controlling your own access to the media this way. If you make the copies available to someone else, though, you should make sure that you're not imposing controls. If free parallel distribution is guaranteed to be available, relevant, and convenient, it's not clear to me how any technical measures could be said to be controlling the copying or reading of the material. The troublesome clause of the FDL says of the copies not of the material. Please try to use the licence, not random translations. If the licence is worded incorrectly, that is still a problem that needs fixing. You're nitpicking. the material is a phrase which refers to the content of the copies. Also, that's just a part of the sentence. Please don't ignore the rest of the sentence, which says what it is significant in the context of those copies. Anyways, what field of use is it that specifically concerns itself with limiting other people's rights to make copies of software? Use on DRM-only devices. Isn't a licence which effectively says you may not use this on $CLASS_OF_DEVICES failing DFSG? That's not what it says. It says you are not allowed to use $CLASS_OF_DEVICES in ways that (obstruct or control) the (reading or further copying) of the copies you (make or distribute). It's probably worth noting that the word or here is not the logical or used in hardware and software design, but is instead the english word where two modes of expression are meant to describe the same concept. I recognize that by using the computer design or concept you can stretch the meaning of this sentence into something ludicrous (like the idea that your own exercise of free will constitutes control in the sense meant by the above sentence), but I haven't seen any solid reasoning that says that these ludicrous interpretations are valid. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] We require that licenses don't discriminate against fields of endeavor, but we have never considered the right to distribute this free software in a non-free fashion a field of endeavor. I'm not convinced that using DRM/DRRT/technical measures is necessarily a non-free fashion. For example, parallel distribution of an uncontrolled copy would enable the recipient to exercise the four freedoms, but seems prohibited by the FDL. I understand that some systems will only load from controlled media: should free software be banned from them? Seems a restriction on a field of use to me. -- 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]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/23/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] We require that licenses don't discriminate against fields of endeavor, but we have never considered the right to distribute this free software in a non-free fashion a field of endeavor. I'm not convinced that using DRM/DRRT/technical measures is necessarily a non-free fashion. For example, parallel distribution of an uncontrolled copy would enable the recipient to exercise the four freedoms, but seems prohibited by the FDL. I understand that some systems will only load from controlled media: should free software be banned from them? Seems a restriction on a field of use to me. It's not clear to me that the GFDL prohibits DRM where a parallel distribution mechanism is guaranteed to be available. If free parallel distribution is guaranteed to be available, relevant, and convenient, it's not clear to me how any technical measures could be said to be controlling the copying or reading of the material. Anyways, what field of use is it that specifically concerns itself with limiting other people's rights to make copies of software? -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] For example, taking some GFDL'd documentation, embedding it in an executable, then making it available to users of a multi-user system with read and write permissions disabled (and only granting execute permissions) would constitute a violation of the GFDL if additional steps were not also taken to keep this legal (for example: granting users access to a debian ftp archive). Is parallel distribution of an uncontrolled copy acceptable? I don't see how that isn't controlling the controlled copy in a way that falls afoul of the licence. But so what? We don't require that we protect users from ever doing something bad. [...] We also require that licences don't try to stop users from ever doing something bad, such as operating nuclear missiles. During the normal course of execution of a program, you need to make numerous copies of a program. One for memory, one for swap, one for L2 cache, numerous small ones for L1 cache, ... [...] In the specific case, I'm saying that such copying to L2 cache is not covered by the GFDL. The GFDL does not specifically prohibit such copying. The FDL would be a terrible licence for programs, but such copying is necessarily covered by copyright and the FDL covers it: it just leaves the defaults in place. (If English law defaults were changed badly on this, I'd probably agree with calling it a basket-case and ignoring much of it for the purposes of review here, as seemingly advocated.) It's interesting that the U.K. will remove permissions that are present without any explicit permission when explicit permission is granted, I think that's a misunderstanding, but irrelevant as you say. -- 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]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/22/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] For example, taking some GFDL'd documentation, embedding it in an executable, then making it available to users of a multi-user system with read and write permissions disabled (and only granting execute permissions) would constitute a violation of the GFDL if additional steps were not also taken to keep this legal (for example: granting users access to a debian ftp archive). Is parallel distribution of an uncontrolled copy acceptable? I don't see how that isn't controlling the controlled copy in a way that falls afoul of the licence. I'm not sure, I've not thought through that case. My point was: these cases only coincidentally involve the use of commonly used facilities. It's not the use of the facilities, in and of themselves, which are prohibited. But so what? We don't require that we protect users from ever doing something bad. [...] We also require that licences don't try to stop users from ever doing something bad, such as operating nuclear missiles. We require that licenses don't discriminate against fields of endeavor, but we have never considered the right to distribute this free software in a non-free fashion a field of endeavor. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3/19/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're citing both wikipedia and USA law? That seems irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a credible supporting reference (because one could have written it oneself) and in I didn't find technical measures on that page at all. You're looking for an exact spelling? That seemed the context in which it was cited. I pointed you at the wikipedia because you seemed to be unfamiliar with the law itself. As a long-time campaigner against EUCD, IPRED and similar things, I'm familiar with much of the law which applies to me. Studying US law in detail unless relevant seems very dull to me. If it's relevant, please direct me to which part applies, not just a general hand-wave towards the entire legal code. On the 14th, I posted the EUCD (my local DMCA-like law) definition of the phrase to this thread's ancestor, which you seemed to refuse to consider and claimed it covers silly things like the atlantic ocean and brick walls if it covers file attributes! You seem to be referring to this post: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00194.html I did not say that the quoted definition refers to such things. I said that it would have to refer to such things to support the meaning you ascribed to it. Do you understand this distinction? Yes. Furthermore, it seems the very same one I am making in the paragraph quoted above: because it would need to apply to such things, your argument that technological measures means something literal seems absurd. In any case: if we interpret the FDL with the legal definition, FDL'd works fail DFSG; if we interpret the FDL with your bizarre literal definition, FDL'd works fail DFSG. A null diff. Indeed. My non-distributed copying is regulated by copyright law, as I described under this Subject yesterday. So, I think distribution is not important and the prohibition of technical measures will apply to private copying in some situations. [...] During the normal course of execution of a program, you need to make numerous copies of a program. One for memory, one for swap, one for L2 cache, numerous small ones for L1 cache, ... But this seems to be outside the scope of the disputed sentence in the GFDL -- control of these copies seems to make no sense because the control involved is not legal control and does not involve copy rights. At least, the GFDL makes no specific requirements about how the document is transcribed to L2 cache. Are you saying that such copying to L2 cache is not covered by copyright law? At least in England, I'm sure that's false and it's covered by s50C of the 1988 Act as amended. If the licence explicitly prohibits such copying, then 50C supports it: 50C.-(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to copy or adapt it, provided that the copying or adapting- (a) is necessary for his lawful use; and (b) is not prohibited under any term or condition of an agreement regulating the circumstances in which his use is lawful. [END QUOTE] AIUI, lawful use mostly means that you are licensed to do it, by EULA or similar. There are analagous provisions for non-programs (since the EUCD amendments, IIRC). I think these are bad laws, but it also needs a bad licence like the FDL to cause problems. We're trying to repair the bad laws, but we can also work on repairing bad licences. Hope that explains, -- 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]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] Computers are technological. If someone doesn't have a computer, they won't be able to read the copy I give them. Does that mean that the GFDL obligates me to buy everyone in the world a computer? [...] Only if you are arguing that the FDL clause's meaning of technological measures is different to the law's meaning. In that case, the clause is a lawyerbomb rather than clearly failing DFSG and I still dislike it. Access controls only control who has access to a copy. They don't control who can make a copy. Only a current owner of a copy can make a copy. So the users of my machines are taking ownership of my original data now, or am I giving them copies by letting them use my computer, or what? -- 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]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote: According to a quick browse of the list archive, the most recently-stated reasons were that copyright law only covers distribution, that and and or are synonymous and that I am insane. All false. Since I've explained twice now that the use of and or or in that sentence does not matter, and why, I'm going to assume you are deliberately misrepresenting my position in order to try to incense me. Also, I said that your interpretation is insane, not that you were personally insane. Thank you for the clarification. I am not surprised by you making another incorrect assumption and I think you should draw yourself some Venn diagrams and consider which cases you ignore by changing or to and in your interpretation For the purposes of this clause later in your message. I am not going to discuss it in detail, because I fear you would respond with some more selective discards or implicit meanings. Is there anything which could explain my reasoning to you further and possibly convince you of its validity? By the same reasoning, if I dropped my credit card and someone cloned it, I'd've implicitly given the details to them. I think that would be true. [...] I disagree and I think any credit card system that agreed with you was provably unjust. Of course, if one accepted liability as part of a card agreement, that was their choice and not subject to that controversy. Best wishes, -- 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]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna writes: On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:08:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Adam McKenna wrote: That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use one copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies on multiple machines, someone would have to *prove* that you were using more than one copy at a time, The plaintiff needs to do no such thing; all he needs to show is that your copies were not for archival purposes only. How would you propose he do that without my cooperation? How would he even find out about it? Maybe a disgruntled friend/family member/employee tells him. Perhaps some software vendor installed spyware or other monitoring software. Who knows? That's not the kind of question we generally consider when deciding whether a license is free. And since you're stating yeah, I used them you've said they're not for archival purposes only ??? they're for use as well. And in a court where I am not required to incriminate myself, how would he prove it? The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applies specifically to criminal charges. Copyright infringement cases are more often civil suits. Civil suits also use a preponderance of evidence rule to decide who wins; if the defendant does not testify, whatever is on his computer will speak pretty loudly. Are you seriously suggesting that something is fit for Debian if exercising certain DFSG freedoms violates the license, but a violator is unlikely to be caught doing it? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:29:24PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] Computers are technological. If someone doesn't have a computer, they won't be able to read the copy I give them. Does that mean that the GFDL obligates me to buy everyone in the world a computer? [...] Only if you are arguing that the FDL clause's meaning of technological measures is different to the law's meaning. In that case, the clause is a lawyerbomb rather than clearly failing DFSG and I still dislike it. I don't think it's a 'lawyerbomb'. In order to sue, the FSF would need to have been damaged in some way and be able to prove damages. What damages would they have in this case? I guess they could sue to enforce compliance of the license, assuming they interpret it the same way you do, but it would be a serious waste of time and money. Access controls only control who has access to a copy. They don't control who can make a copy. Only a current owner of a copy can make a copy. So the users of my machines are taking ownership of my original data now, or am I giving them copies by letting them use my computer, or what? By keeping your copy in a world readable directory, you are offering them copies. The computer provides a facility for them to request and obtain copies automatically, without your involvement. That does not change the fact that distribution is taking place, with you as the distributor. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:03:19PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote: According to a quick browse of the list archive, the most recently-stated reasons were that copyright law only covers distribution, that and and or are synonymous and that I am insane. All false. Since I've explained twice now that the use of and or or in that sentence does not matter, and why, I'm going to assume you are deliberately misrepresenting my position in order to try to incense me. Also, I said that your interpretation is insane, not that you were personally insane. Thank you for the clarification. I am not surprised by you making another incorrect assumption and I think you should draw yourself some Venn diagrams and consider which cases you ignore by changing or to and in your interpretation For the purposes of this clause later in your message. I am not going to discuss it in detail, because I fear you would respond with some more selective discards or implicit meanings. yawn. Is there anything which could explain my reasoning to you further and possibly convince you of its validity? No, because it doesn't matter to my arguments. My points are the same whether you consider copying, distribution, or both. By the same reasoning, if I dropped my credit card and someone cloned it, I'd've implicitly given the details to them. I think that would be true. [...] I disagree and I think any credit card system that agreed with you was provably unjust. Of course, if one accepted liability as part of a card agreement, that was their choice and not subject to that controversy. OK. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: [...] MJ quoted the EUCD's definition of technological measure and you have not explained why you think that should be ignored. I did, in the part of the e-mail you snipped. Yow! We should ignore recent copyright law?!? I strongly disagree with that. I don't like copyright law, but - like angry predator animals - it's dangerously negligent for us to ignore it totally. We can ignore it for your chmod example, because chmod is not a techical measure that controls copying. It's a technical measure that controls access. I'm in disbelief that some seem willing to base licence interpretations on finding hidden implicit meanings[1]. I'm in disbelief that people participating on a board called debian-legal would take one sentence from a license, read it without considering the context or any of the the other text in the license, and declare it non-free. Do you think that this is how courts work in real life? --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm in disbelief that people participating on a board called debian-legal would take one sentence from a license, read it without considering the context or any of the the other text in the license, and declare it non-free. Do you think that this is how courts work in real life? I think there's very good reason for d-l's typically pessimistic evaluation of licenses. J. Random Hacker is at a distinct disadvantage in our legal system (U.S., in my case) with respect to just about anyone who might file a suit. We're not really worried about cases where the copyright holder is friendly and reasonable, obviously. We're concerned about cases where that's not the case. And one thing that should be clear to anyone is that even the best of circumstances can turn sour and antagonistic given the right sequence of events. So when evaluating a license we assume the worst: evil, nasty, duplicitous copyright holders who have a personal vendetta against anyone and everyone. Thankfully, that's not the typical case, by a long shot. But there are enough cases that come close to merit such pessimism when reading licenses. In an ideal world, you'd be right that the reasonable version would always win. Bad guys would always wear black hats so we can identify them, and they'd always lose. But that's not the real world. The GFDL, in my strong opinion, offers much more than the average amount of ambiguity and risk for potential licensees. Most of it doesn't represent a real difference of opinion, I think, but it's there nonetheless. What's more, we've had an extremely hard time getting clarification from the FSF on these issues. No doubt we bear a portion of the blame for this: personality conflicts, etc., etc.; I'm sure you know the drill. But the fact remains that we absolutely do *not* have clarification, despite multiple attempts to get it. Maybe your opinion on what constitutes a reasonable interpretation of the GFDL matches that of the FSF. Maybe no user of Debian software is ever going to have an opinion on what constitutes reasonable that doesn't match the FSF. Maybe no other copyright holder who uses the GFDL is going to have a different opinion on what constitutes reasonable. All this despite a whopping lot of ambiguity in the simple text of the license, and despite d-l's abundance of experience with very odd interpretations even of language we thought was self-evident (UW, anyone?). Maybe. But that's an awful lot of maybes, and my opinion is that the odds are considerably less than 50% on each and every one of them. That's why I think the GR was, frankly, _stupid_. Crucially, I think it's a violation of the trust that Debian's users have in us. But all that's just my opinion. And I'm not even a DD, so I don't get a vote. And I didn't even participate in the discussion leading up to the vote because, frankly, I'm sick and tired of the issue and it never occurred to me it would turn out as it did. I'm ready to move on and forget about the GFDL. But your comment above isn't really about the GFDL at all, but about how d-l interprets licenses. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 08:19:30AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: Maybe a disgruntled friend/family member/employee tells him. Perhaps some software vendor installed spyware or other monitoring software. Who knows? That's not the kind of question we generally consider when deciding whether a license is free. We are not talking about the general case here, we are talking specifically about verbatim copies of GFDL documents. And since you're stating yeah, I used them you've said they're not for archival purposes only ??? they're for use as well. And in a court where I am not required to incriminate myself, how would he prove it? The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applies specifically to criminal charges. Copyright infringement cases are more often civil suits. Civil suits also use a preponderance of evidence rule to decide who wins; if the defendant does not testify, whatever is on his computer will speak pretty loudly. Post-DMCA, copyright infringement is a criminal offense. Are you asserting that Fifth Amendment protections do not extend to witnesses testifying in civil cases? Are you seriously suggesting that something is fit for Debian if exercising certain DFSG freedoms violates the license, but a violator is unlikely to be caught doing it? No, in fact I've gone out of my way to make sure that I didn't suggest that. What I've suggested (maybe not clearly) is that IMO: a) A person could reasonably argue that multiple verbatim copies of a GFDL document are backup copies as defined by 17 USC 117. b) In the case of GFDL documents, there are no monetary damages that could be sued for in civil court c) a, and b, together, make the restriction you are claiming exists, with regard to verbatim copies of GFDL documents, both unenforcable and unlikely to be brought to court. (Additionally, I personally don't agree that the restriction exists at all). --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 21 Mar 2006 00:59:55 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller writes: Ignoring for the moment that copyleft by necessity goes beyond what is governed by copyright law, where in the scenario that I described does copyright law no longer apply to dealing with the work? I disagree with your assertion that copyleft goes beyond what is governed by copyright law. Copyleft is a set of copyright limitations. People who do not satisfy the requirements of a copyleft license aren't granted the right to generate copies on the works that have those requirements. Copyright law does not reserve the right to determine a license for derivative works; it just reserves the right to authorize their creation. Copyleft works by conditioning that authorization on the derivative work(s) being licensed under certain terms. Similarly, the GFDL works by conditioning the authorization to copy a work on not using technical measures to restrict the reading or further copying of the copies. Sure, but nothing in copyleft requires that someone creating a derivative work place any specific license on that derivative work. Granted, no copy rights are granted if an appropriate license is not used. But that's not a requirement -- that's entirely up to the person creating the derivative work. Copyright laws apply in those circumstances because copies of a copyrighted work are being generated. Copyright laws do not apply when there are no copies being generated and where no copy rights are being asserted. Obviously not, but someone makes a copy when I download a file from a Debian archive mirror to my hard drive, and in the scenario I described (I somehow have a copy; I make another copy; I chmod the second copy) I would generate a copy. It's true that you would generate a copy, but the chmod in no way controls the generation of that copy, nor does it control your generation of further copies. I suppose I could see you trying to argue that the person who operates the machine you downloaded the copy from was involved, but your use of chmod in no way controls that person's ability to make further copies. I suppose I could see you arguing that random user Joe is being denied access to make further copies, but random user Joe has not been a part of the specific example you're discussing. However, if this is what you were alluding to: you have to grant Joe some right to read or make copies before you can institute any controls on Joe's right to read or make further copies. You can't control something that doesn't exist. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/21/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In any case: if we interpret the FDL with the legal definition, FDL'd works fail DFSG; if we interpret the FDL with your bizarre literal definition, FDL'd works fail DFSG. A null diff. How? Please spell out your reasoning here. (1) I don't think my definition is at all bizarre. (2) I don't think that GFDL'd works fail DFSG in this context. (3) I don't see that the GFDL prohibits the use of mechanisms such as chmod unless they are used in very narrow specific contexts which have very little to do with any likely situation or any normal use. For example, taking some GFDL'd documentation, embedding it in an executable, then making it available to users of a multi-user system with read and write permissions disabled (and only granting execute permissions) would constitute a violation of the GFDL if additional steps were not also taken to keep this legal (for example: granting users access to a debian ftp archive). But so what? We don't require that we protect users from ever doing something bad. People could just as severely violate copyright by combining software from two packages with incompatible licenses and giving the users of a multi-user system access to the result. During the normal course of execution of a program, you need to make numerous copies of a program. One for memory, one for swap, one for L2 cache, numerous small ones for L1 cache, ... But this seems to be outside the scope of the disputed sentence in the GFDL -- control of these copies seems to make no sense because the control involved is not legal control and does not involve copy rights. At least, the GFDL makes no specific requirements about how the document is transcribed to L2 cache. Are you saying that such copying to L2 cache is not covered by copyright law? At least in England, I'm sure that's false and it's covered by s50C of the 1988 Act as amended. If the licence explicitly prohibits such copying, then 50C supports it: I'm not saying that in the general case. In the specific case, I'm saying that such copying to L2 cache is not covered by the GFDL. The GFDL does not specifically prohibit such copying. It's interesting that the U.K. will remove permissions that are present without any explicit permission when explicit permission is granted, and I'm sure there's interesting philosophical aspects to that issue. However, this quirk does not apply in the context of the GFDL so I don't see that it's relevant here. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 12:56:05PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Yow! We should ignore recent copyright law?!? [...] We can ignore it for your chmod example, because [...] I disagree, as previously stated. I'm in disbelief that some seem willing to base licence interpretations on finding hidden implicit meanings[1]. I'm in disbelief that people participating on a board called debian-legal would take one sentence from a license, read it without considering the context or any of the the other text in the license, and declare it non-free. There is no board of debian-legal, as far as I know. Further, I don't currently sit on any boards, as far as I can recall. I am almost totally non-aligned at present. Further, I am considering it in the context of both the licence and the applicable law, while you advocate selectively ignoring the law and parts of the licence. Finally, I don't declare it non-free and have spoken against such unhelpful ambiguous language in the past. Do you think that this is how courts work in real life? It's closer than your process, but I don't really want to end up in court when it's not beneficial anyway, even if we think I'd win. -- 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]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna writes: And since you're stating yeah, I used them you've said they're not for archival purposes only ??? they're for use as well. And in a court where I am not required to incriminate myself, how would he prove it? The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applies specifically to criminal charges. Copyright infringement cases are more often civil suits. Civil suits also use a preponderance of evidence rule to decide who wins; if the defendant does not testify, whatever is on his computer will speak pretty loudly. Post-DMCA, copyright infringement is a criminal offense. Are you asserting that Fifth Amendment protections do not extend to witnesses testifying in civil cases? Those protections are only available sometimes. The wrongful death civil suit against OJ Simpson (after his criminal trial) was a notable case: Simpson could not claim Fifth Amendment privilege since he had been acquitted in the criminal case, and his testimony could not be used to convict him. In contrast, Det. Mark Furhman refused to answer questions (as a witness, not a party to the suit) on Fifth Amendment grounds because the state of California was actively investigating his actions. Are you seriously suggesting that something is fit for Debian if exercising certain DFSG freedoms violates the license, but a violator is unlikely to be caught doing it? No, in fact I've gone out of my way to make sure that I didn't suggest that. What I've suggested (maybe not clearly) is that IMO: a) A person could reasonably argue that multiple verbatim copies of a GFDL document are backup copies as defined by 17 USC 117. 17 USC 117 talks about computer programs, not documentation. b) In the case of GFDL documents, there are no monetary damages that could be sued for in civil court Injunctions, award of costs, and punitive damages are possible even if there are no specific economic damages. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 08:29:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Finally, I don't declare it non-free and have spoken against such unhelpful ambiguous language in the past. Then we are in agreement. --Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: olive wrote: Some might argue that a court will read the GFDL in a more litteral sense. I do not think that because it seems very obvious that the copyright holder of a GFDL document don't want to restrict what you do with your own copy. Of course I might be wrong but for every license there is always a risk that a juge read it in a different way; Debian must read the license in the most probable way. Debian-legal has traditionally read licenses in a more pessimistic light; we didn't want to leave Debian — or its users — in danger of being sued for copyright infringement. I don't believe it's pessimistic to avoid attempting to attribute interpretations to a license which are not explicitly stated in the license itself. I don't believe that it is very obvious that the copyright holder of a GFDL document don't want to restrict what you do with your own copy, because the license they chose explicitly does so. We don't stretch interpretations of obviously free licenses to be non-free unless the copyright holder has explicitly stated that interpretation to be true (such as UW with PINE: oh, when we said 'and' we really meant 'or'). Similarly, we shouldn't stretch interpretations of non-free conditions to be Free if in the absence of a clarifiation from upstream, which we don't have here. (Note that my use of the phrase non-free conditions does not contradict the GFDL GR, which just states that the GFDL as a whole is defined to be DFSG-free without unmodifiable sections; the individual clauses can and should still be considered non-free in any other context, and may still render works non-distributable which would make the question of defined DFSG-freeness irrelevant.) - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/19/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it's someone else's GPL'd C code, then in your hypothetical example, he's supposed provide source to his students should they ask for it. That is my point. The Word document is the source. That is the format that he makes modifications in. This is not allowed by the GFDL. First off, the GFDL does not have to be GPL compatible to be DFSG free. Ok. I never said it did. Second off, you've not convinced me that the GFDL never allows the use of word format (I'll grant that such allowance would come with caveats about as strong as those necessary for your example). I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Could you enumerate those caveats? Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:45:12 -0500 Jeremy Hankins wrote: That's why I think the GR was, frankly, _stupid_. Crucially, I think it's a violation of the trust that Debian's users have in us. And that's the worst result of the GR outcome. All that time spent in trying to detect issues and pointing them out, so that Debian could be enhanced and tend towards compliance with our principles, and now what we are left is a This bug is not a bug response... :- But all that's just my opinion. It's mine too. And I'm not even a DD, Nor do I. so I don't get a vote. And I didn't even participate in the discussion leading up to the vote because, frankly, I'm sick and tired of the issue and it never occurred to me it would turn out as it did. The same holds for me... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp1CxNhMs258.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/21/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Second off, you've not convinced me that the GFDL never allows the use of word format (I'll grant that such allowance would come with caveats about as strong as those necessary for your example). I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Could you enumerate those caveats? No, there's too many potential cases for me to enumerate all potential caveats. I can give you a simple example, however, of a case where [with caveats] word format is suitable: some drawings could be saved in some word format if the version of word in question is widely available, and if there is a command line program that will convert those drawings to postscript. Another example where word format is ok to distribute involves a simple word-xml-word translation facility where both the word format and the xml format are distributed. As an aside, I seem to remember a number of programs which can deal with word format to varying degrees (three that come to mind are catdoc (GPL), mswordview (GPL/LGPL) and openoffice (PDL/LGPL), but I'm sure there are others). -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:50:54AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] What's the difference? One has 'or' and the other has 'and'. Your lack of attention to detail is troubling. Thanks for pointing out the obvious with an obtuse, glib comment. I can see you're interested in having an intelligent discussion. You often seem to use sarcasm unmarked. I thought that was another example. I mean, it seems fairly obvious what the difference is! The point was, if you're making copies for yourself, you only need to follow the license terms with regard to yourself. Whether the license says or or and in this case is irrelevant. Not really: if it said and it would be limited to certain cases. The or case gives us an obvious and troublesome example. of copying). It says that you can't try to prevent the people you give copies to from making further copies. No, the licence requires you 'not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.' It does not limit this to the people to whom you give copies. But if you haven't given the copies to anyone, you can't be trying to obstruct or control the reading or further copying done by anyone except yourself. It seems fairly obvious that other people may have access to a copy that I made without me distributing it to them, especially on multi-user systems like debian. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong. You are insisting on a basically insane literal interpretation of the license. Good way to show interest in intelligent discussion(!) For an encore, will you compare me to Hitler? I consider my interpretation far saner than inserting random extra unwritten limits into the licence, such as excluding non-distributed copies. If you showed references to support ignoring whole rafts of English copyright law, I'd be more respectful of your arguments and wild claims. Best wishes, -- 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]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna writes: But if you haven't given the copies to anyone, you can't be trying to obstruct or control the reading or further copying done by anyone except yourself. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong. You are insisting on a basically insane literal interpretation of the license. As far as I know, debian-legal has never tried to interpret a license contrary to what the text says just because someone thinks reading the text in the most straightforward way is basically insane. The usual conclusion in such cases is that the license is in fact flawed. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:14:27AM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: Adam McKenna writes: But if you haven't given the copies to anyone, you can't be trying to obstruct or control the reading or further copying done by anyone except yourself. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong. You are insisting on a basically insane literal interpretation of the license. As far as I know, debian-legal has never tried to interpret a license contrary to what the text says just because someone thinks reading the text in the most straightforward way is basically insane. The usual conclusion in such cases is that the license is in fact flawed. The license is obviously flawed. But not flawed to the point of being non-free (at least, not due to the DRM clause). --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Not really: if it said and it would be limited to certain cases.
The or case gives us an obvious and troublesome example.
I don't agree, for reasons already mentioned.
It seems fairly obvious that other people may have access to a copy that
I made without me distributing it to them, especially on multi-user systems
like debian.
If other people have access to it, then you've (at least implicitly)
distributed it. Apply the same example to a copyrighted MP3 file, with
enough other users on the system, and you'd have the RIAA on your ass pretty
quick.
I consider my interpretation far saner than inserting random extra unwritten
limits into the licence, such as excluding non-distributed copies. If you
showed references to support ignoring whole rafts of English copyright law,
I'd be more respectful of your arguments and wild claims.
OK, how about this. You insist that a brick wall or safe are not
'technological' measures.
However, the definition of technology is:
technology
n 1: the practical application of science to commerce or industry
[syn: {engineering}]
2: the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying
scientific knowledge to practical problems; he had
trouble deciding which branch of engineering to study
[syn: {engineering}, {engineering science}, {applied
science}]
I don't see how a brick wall or a safe would not fit either of these
definitions. You seem to be using or thinking of the word 'technology' as
only computer technology.
Taken to the extreme, if your argument holds, it would be illegal to keep a
copy of a GFDL document locked in a safe, or inside a house with locked
doors. Therefore, I can't accept this as a sane reading of the license.
Especially given that the license specifically says that you can charge for
making copies.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
Not really: if it said and it would be limited to certain cases.
The or case gives us an obvious and troublesome example.
I don't agree, for reasons already mentioned.
According to a quick browse of the list archive, the most recently-stated
reasons were that copyright law only covers distribution, that and
and or are synonymous and that I am insane. All false.
It seems fairly obvious that other people may have access to a copy that
I made without me distributing it to them, especially on multi-user systems
like debian.
If other people have access to it, then you've (at least implicitly)
distributed it. Apply the same example to a copyrighted MP3 file, with
enough other users on the system, and you'd have the RIAA on your ass pretty
quick.
By the same reasoning, if I dropped my credit card and someone cloned it,
I'd've implicitly given the details to them. I really hope you never work
for my bank!
I consider my interpretation far saner than inserting random extra unwritten
limits into the licence, such as excluding non-distributed copies. If you
showed references to support ignoring whole rafts of English copyright law,
I'd be more respectful of your arguments and wild claims.
OK, how about this. You insist that a brick wall or safe are not
'technological' measures.
However, the definition of technology is:
technology
n 1: the practical application of science to commerce or industry
[syn: {engineering}]
2: the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying
scientific knowledge to practical problems; \he had
trouble deciding which branch of engineering to study\
[syn: {engineering}, {engineering science}, {applied
science}]
I don't see how a brick wall or a safe would not fit either of these
definitions. You seem to be using or thinking of the word 'technology' as
only computer technology.
Not at all.
Firstly, you seem to be quoting wordnet or some other unreliable
reference without naming it. Please state your references. Also, try
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ - it isn't perfect, but is fairly good.
Disputing the definition of 'technology' isn't my objection to your
reasoning, but it may suggest other different views.
More importantly, I insist that brick walls and safes are not
technological measures for protecting work because the protection is
obtained from their nature and not by their operation technology.
Their construction (not the best word, as I include closing the safe)
uses technology, but the protection does not operate technologically.
You seem to be arguing that technological measures are any measures
that have used technology at any time. That's much broader than the
law. Remember, the applicable law here was quoted in:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00194.html
I think it is a bad law, but it is not as bad as if techological
measures were really broad enough to cover walls and safes.
Taken to the extreme, if your argument holds, it would be illegal to keep a
copy of a GFDL document locked in a safe, or inside a house with locked
doors. Therefore, I can't accept this as a sane reading of the license.
Especially given that the license specifically says that you can charge for
making copies.
That is not my argument, taken to extreme or otherwise.
Hope that clarifies,
--
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]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Not really: if it said and it would be limited to certain cases. The or case gives us an obvious and troublesome example. I don't agree, for reasons already mentioned. According to a quick browse of the list archive, the most recently-stated reasons were that copyright law only covers distribution, that and and or are synonymous and that I am insane. All false. Since I've explained twice now that the use of and or or in that sentence does not matter, and why, I'm going to assume you are deliberately misrepresenting my position in order to try to incense me. Also, I said that your interpretation is insane, not that you were personally insane. If other people have access to it, then you've (at least implicitly) distributed it. Apply the same example to a copyrighted MP3 file, with enough other users on the system, and you'd have the RIAA on your ass pretty quick. By the same reasoning, if I dropped my credit card and someone cloned it, I'd've implicitly given the details to them. I think that would be true. However, dropping a credit card does not automatically give authorization to use it to the person who acquires it. In fact, credit cards *used* to make the holder liable for a small part of the fraudulent charges (most cards were limited to $50-100 in liability) to encourage the holders not to drop their cards. This has pretty much disappeared in the internet age, but only due to the fact that the CC companies know they will make more money from online transactions than they would lose by eliminating the cardholder's liability. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00194.html Please explain why this doesn't include file permissions or any of the other examples previously posted. File permissions seem to be a technology designed to prevent or restrict unauthorised acts. The exact text of the FDL is: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. For the purposes of this clause, there are two kinds of copies that can be made. 1) Copies that are made, but not distributed 2) Copies that are made and distributed In case #1, the only person who has access to the copies is the person who made them. Assuming he hasn't employed a technical measure to prevent himself from reading or making further copies, he complies with the license. If he puts the files on a multiuser system, but controls access to them with file permissions, he still has not distributed the files. If he makes them world readable, then he has made them available for distribution. In case #2, the file permissions would be controlled by the recipient (they do not propagate along with the file), and not the distributor. The responsibility for meeting the license terms at this point rests with the recipient (assuming he chooses to make more copies and/or distribute them) The only place where a violation could arise WRT file permissions is if a person made the opaque copy readable by world, but kept the transparent copy only readable by himself. This would be a violation of the license, but not due to the DRM clause. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: Adam McKenna writes: Since I've explained twice now that the use of and or or in that sentence does not matter, and why, I'm going to assume you are deliberately misrepresenting my position in order to try to incense me. Also, I said that your interpretation is insane, not that you were personally insane. Since MJ and I have explained at least twice now that the use of or versus and in that sentence does matter, and why, I'm going to assume you are deliberately ignoring statutory law and license construction in order to try to incense us. As a legal excercise, maybe. Practically, it does not. Consider the following two statements: If you don't have permission to make personal copies from the law (say, you live in a jurisdiction that does not have the concept of fair use), then you have to obey the license if you want to make personal copies. If you don't have permission to distribute copies from the law, then you have to obey the license if you want to distribute copies. If the license said make and distribute, then that would eliminate statement #1. You could make personal copies without obeying the license. However, you still comply with the license if you make a personal copy that is readable only by yourself (mode 0700). You would not be in violation of the DRM clause because everyone who has possession of the copy (yourself) is still able to read the copy and make further copies. MJ quoted the EUCD's definition of technological measure and you have not explained why you think that should be ignored. I did, in the part of the e-mail you snipped. --Adam Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna writes: As a legal excercise, maybe. Practically, it does not. Consider the following two statements: If you don't have permission to make personal copies from the law (say, you live in a jurisdiction that does not have the concept of fair use), then you have to obey the license if you want to make personal copies. If you don't have permission to distribute copies from the law, then you have to obey the license if you want to distribute copies. If the license said make and distribute, then that would eliminate statement #1. You could make personal copies without obeying the license. If the license said make and distribute, then that would exclude the technical measures restriction for personal copies -- it would not in itself let you make personal copies without obeying the license. However, you still comply with the license if you make a personal copy that is readable only by yourself (mode 0700). You would not be in violation of the DRM clause because everyone who has possession of the copy (yourself) is still able to read the copy and make further copies. This again assumes that the license clause only deals with copies that you distribute. From your earlier email: If he puts the files on a multiuser system, but controls access to them with file permissions, he still has not distributed the files. If he makes them world readable, then he has made them available for distribution. The FDL says nothing about the technical measures restriction only applying to copies that are distributed or made available for distribution. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 06:35:27PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: If the license said make and distribute, then that would exclude the technical measures restriction for personal copies -- it would not in itself let you make personal copies without obeying the license. Right, unless the copy was a fair use. However, you still comply with the license if you make a personal copy that is readable only by yourself (mode 0700). You would not be in violation of the DRM clause because everyone who has possession of the copy (yourself) is still able to read the copy and make further copies. This again assumes that the license clause only deals with copies that you distribute. From your earlier email: No, it can't assume that, because I'm specifically talking about undistributed copies. If he puts the files on a multiuser system, but controls access to them with file permissions, he still has not distributed the files. If he makes them world readable, then he has made them available for distribution. The FDL says nothing about the technical measures restriction only applying to copies that are distributed or made available for distribution. I agree. What I am saying is that, in order to violate the license, technical measures applied to documents that have not been distributed need to prevent the user of the documents from reading or making further copies. File permissions do not do that. (Unless the user purposely sets permissions so that he himself may not read the files. I guess in that case, he could sue himself for access. Or maybe the FSF could sue him in order to force him to restore access to himself.) --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna writes: On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 06:35:27PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: If the license said make and distribute, then that would exclude the technical measures restriction for personal copies -- it would not in itself let you make personal copies without obeying the license. Right, unless the copy was a fair use. Thus the in itself qualifier. If he puts the files on a multiuser system, but controls access to them with file permissions, he still has not distributed the files. If he makes them world readable, then he has made them available for distribution. The FDL says nothing about the technical measures restriction only applying to copies that are distributed or made available for distribution. I agree. What I am saying is that, in order to violate the license, technical measures applied to documents that have not been distributed need to prevent the user of the documents from reading or making further copies. File permissions do not do that. (Unless the user purposely sets permissions so that he himself may not read the files. I guess in that case, he could sue himself for access. Or maybe the FSF could sue him in order to force him to restore access to himself.) The license says You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. It does not say ... control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute by someone who possess a copy or ... control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute by someone who can read the copy or anything of the sort. In the absence of any such limitation, I (and I believe most judges in common law countries) read the command as not being limited. I agree that there *should* be some limitation, but do not see why the limitation you describe can be inferred under the rules of contract or license construction. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:04:36PM -0500, Michael Poole wrote: The license says You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. It does not say ... control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute by someone who possess a copy or ... control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute by someone who can read the copy or anything of the sort. It's implicit. Only someone who has a copy can read it or make further copies. If someone doesn't have a copy, they can't do that. Put simply, file permissions control access, not the ability to read or copy. To be able to read or copy depends on having access, but it is not equivalent to having access. I think we can agree that the license is badly worded, but I can't see how this would lead to a real-world problem. --Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna wrote: That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use one copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies on multiple machines, someone would have to *prove* that you were using more than one copy at a time, The plaintiff needs to do no such thing; all he needs to show is that your copies were not for archival purposes only. And since you're stating yeah, I used them you've said they're not for archival purposes only — they're for use as well. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna wrote: The exact text of the FDL is: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. For the purposes of this clause, there are two kinds of copies that can be made. 1) Copies that are made, but not distributed 2) Copies that are made and distributed In case #1, the only person who has access to the copies is the person who made them. Assuming he hasn't employed a technical measure to prevent himself from reading or making further copies, he complies with the license. If I use rcp to copy a work from one machine to another (both which are owned an exclusively used by me), this is making a copy but not distributing. Now, if I were to do that from my local wireless hotspot, anyone else on the hotspot has access to that copy while it is being transmitted. I'd like to keep the document private, so instead I use scp. But wait — encryption is a technological measure to obstruct ... the reading or further copying of the copies [I] make. The people I am restricting from reading or further copying are my fellow wireless hotspot users. It seems you have read the GFDL to say: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute BY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S). but that's not what it says, unfortunately. And if that is what it is intended to say, then why doesn't it? Its not like we didn't point this out to the FSF during the draft period. In addition, this effectively strikes the words make or leaving: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you distribute but surely interpretation which requires ignoring words should not be preferred? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna wrote: Put simply, file permissions control access, not the ability to read or copy. To be able to read or copy depends on having access, but it is not equivalent to having access. If A depends on B then not doing/having B prevents A. If you are not allowed to prevent A, then you are thus not allowed to not do/not have B. The GFDL says you are not allowed to use technological measures to prevent reading the work. Reading the work requires having the +r file permission set (as you stated above). Thus, you must have the +r file permission set if file permissions are a technological measure. So, either file permissions are not a technological measure or the GFDL prohibits not giving read permission. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/19/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see that: it says 'make or distribute' not 'make and distribute'. An argument could be made that a person making a copy available for other people to read under restricted circumstances is not distributing that copy. Note, however, that only when more than one person is involved is there any control or restriction. If there's only one person involved, or if there's a second person but no access to the GFDL'd document at any time, there is no reading or further copying to be controlled. Thus, make or distribute is appropriate -- because the sentence goes on to describe the contexts where control is significant. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 18 Mar 2006 22:46:24 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought it was rather obvious that I meant that in the sense of the original scenario, and not in the general case. I'm not sure what's not obvious in what I said. You claim that the GFDL can not be taken to apply where copyright law does not apply. Right. Ignoring for the moment that copyleft by necessity goes beyond what is governed by copyright law, where in the scenario that I described does copyright law no longer apply to dealing with the work? I disagree with your assertion that copyleft goes beyond what is governed by copyright law. Copyleft is a set of copyright limitations. People who do not satisfy the requirements of a copyleft license aren't granted the right to generate copies on the works that have those requirements. Copyright laws apply in those circumstances because copies of a copyrighted work are being generated. Copyright laws do not apply when there are no copies being generated and where no copy rights are being asserted. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act On 3/19/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're citing both wikipedia and USA law? That seems irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a credible supporting reference (because one could have written it oneself) and in I didn't find technical measures on that page at all. You're looking for an exact spelling? I pointed you at the wikipedia because you seemed to be unfamiliar with the law itself. As to USA law, it's not just the USA we need be concerned about, because non-USAmericans are using the FDL and debian is distributed outside the USA. Free software should not just be free in the USA. That doesn't make the law irrelevant. Incomplete, but not irrelevant. On the 14th, I posted the EUCD (my local DMCA-like law) definition of the phrase to this thread's ancestor, which you seemed to refuse to consider and claimed it covers silly things like the atlantic ocean and brick walls if it covers file attributes! You seem to be referring to this post: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00194.html I did not say that the quoted definition refers to such things. I said that it would have to refer to such things to support the meaning you ascribed to it. Do you understand this distinction? Only when file permissions that you control are applied to copies you distribute to someone else. If you've given someone else a copy and they can't control the file permissions on a copy, that would be a problem. Why is distribution important? It's a copyright licence, not a distribution licence: it covers making copies, too, and that's mentioned explicitly in that clause too. Ok, to put a fine point on it: only acts of copying which are regulated by copyright law matter. Indeed. My non-distributed copying is regulated by copyright law, as I described under this Subject yesterday. So, I think distribution is not important and the prohibition of technical measures will apply to private copying in some situations. Hope that clarifies, I'm not sure what you mean here. During the normal course of execution of a program, you need to make numerous copies of a program. One for memory, one for swap, one for L2 cache, numerous small ones for L1 cache, ... But this seems to be outside the scope of the disputed sentence in the GFDL -- control of these copies seems to make no sense because the control involved is not legal control and does not involve copy rights. At least, the GFDL makes no specific requirements about how the document is transcribed to L2 cache. The same goes for controlling the position of a copy on the shelf -- even if you use high tech devices, you're not dealing with any issue specified by the GFDL. At least not for any normal concept of controlling the position of a copy on the shelf. The same goes for the atlantic ocean analogy. There's no copy right issues here. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/19/06, Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be extremely unfortunate for Debian to change its standards of freedom to merely distributable by Debian. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote: Your suggestion is a red herring. The GFDL makes no mention of Debian. No red herring. Ok, then a straw man -- a counter argument which makes up the argument which it is refuting, instead of addressing what was really said. It would be extremely unfortunate for Debian to change its standards of freedom to merely distributable. Freedom to modify and NOT distribute (or selectively distribute) are core freedoms IMO, though the FSF seems to disagree. I'm not disputing any of this. Instead, I was suggesting that license provisions which have nothing to do with the distribution of software (which is what Debian is involved in), and which are not difficult to deal with, are not things we need to care much about. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller writes: Ignoring for the moment that copyleft by necessity goes beyond what is governed by copyright law, where in the scenario that I described does copyright law no longer apply to dealing with the work? I disagree with your assertion that copyleft goes beyond what is governed by copyright law. Copyleft is a set of copyright limitations. People who do not satisfy the requirements of a copyleft license aren't granted the right to generate copies on the works that have those requirements. Copyright law does not reserve the right to determine a license for derivative works; it just reserves the right to authorize their creation. Copyleft works by conditioning that authorization on the derivative work(s) being licensed under certain terms. Similarly, the GFDL works by conditioning the authorization to copy a work on not using technical measures to restrict the reading or further copying of the copies. Copyright laws apply in those circumstances because copies of a copyrighted work are being generated. Copyright laws do not apply when there are no copies being generated and where no copy rights are being asserted. Obviously not, but someone makes a copy when I download a file from a Debian archive mirror to my hard drive, and in the scenario I described (I somehow have a copy; I make another copy; I chmod the second copy) I would generate a copy. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:47:34PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Adam McKenna wrote: Put simply, file permissions control access, not the ability to read or copy. To be able to read or copy depends on having access, but it is not equivalent to having access. If A depends on B then not doing/having B prevents A. If you are not allowed to prevent A, then you are thus not allowed to not do/not have B. The GFDL says you are not allowed to use technological measures to prevent reading the work. Reading the work requires having the +r file permission set (as you stated above). Thus, you must have the +r file permission set if file permissions are a technological measure. So, either file permissions are not a technological measure or the GFDL prohibits not giving read permission. Computers are technological. If someone doesn't have a computer, they won't be able to read the copy I give them. Does that mean that the GFDL obligates me to buy everyone in the world a computer? Obviously not. It does not even obligate me to make the copy available to whoever wants it (indeed, according to the license, I can charge a fee for providing a copy, and deny copies to those who are too poor to pay). Access controls only control who has access to a copy. They don't control who can make a copy. Only a current owner of a copy can make a copy. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:28:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: If I use rcp to copy a work from one machine to another (both which are owned an exclusively used by me), this is making a copy but not distributing. If someone sniffs your connection and obtains a copy of the document, then distribution has taken place. But that is really beside the point. Now, if I were to do that from my local wireless hotspot, anyone else on the hotspot has access to that copy while it is being transmitted. I'd like to keep the document private, so instead I use scp. But wait ??? encryption is a technological measure to obstruct ... the reading or further copying of the copies [I] make. The people I am restricting from reading or further copying are my fellow wireless hotspot users. Encryption, like file permissions, is an access control. In this case, you are limiting access to those in possession of the decryption key(s). Now, if your encryption scheme somehow inhibited people who you sent the file to from making further copies, or forced them to pay you $1 every time they read the document, *that* would violate the license. It seems you have read the GFDL to say: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute BY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S). but that's not what it says, unfortunately. And if that is what it is intended to say, then why doesn't it? Its not like we didn't point this out to the FSF during the draft period. In addition, this effectively strikes the words make or leaving: It doesn't need to say that. You don't need permission from the license to control access to copies that are owned by you. Just like you don't need permission to be able to put a hardcopy in a safe. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:08:30PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Adam McKenna wrote: That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use one copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies on multiple machines, someone would have to *prove* that you were using more than one copy at a time, The plaintiff needs to do no such thing; all he needs to show is that your copies were not for archival purposes only. How would you propose he do that without my cooperation? How would he even find out about it? And since you're stating yeah, I used them you've said they're not for archival purposes only ??? they're for use as well. And in a court where I am not required to incriminate myself, how would he prove it? --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 01:53:17PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Maybe in the US. Private copies in England have more limited scope and we seem to have limited or no right to make backups. This does comply with both letter and spirit of the Berne Union, as far as I can tell, so can't simply be ignored as a basket-case legal system. Still, the person making the private copy is not distributing to anyone. So as long as he doesn't employ a technological measure to prevent *himself* from making further copies, he still complies with the license. I don't see that: it says 'make or distribute' not 'make and distribute'. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Better yet, why don't we recognize that the phrase technical measures has a very specific meaning when we're talking about copyright protection? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act You're citing both wikipedia and USA law? That seems irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a credible supporting reference (because one could have written it oneself) and in I didn't find technical measures on that page at all. As to USA law, it's not just the USA we need be concerned about, because non-USAmericans are using the FDL and debian is distributed outside the USA. Free software should not just be free in the USA. On the 14th, I posted the EUCD (my local DMCA-like law) definition of the phrase to this thread's ancestor, which you seemed to refuse to consider and claimed it covers silly things like the atlantic ocean and brick walls if it covers file attributes! Sorry if I'm thick, but I find your argument utterly incomprehensible. [...] Only when file permissions that you control are applied to copies you distribute to someone else. If you've given someone else a copy and they can't control the file permissions on a copy, that would be a problem. Why is distribution important? It's a copyright licence, not a distribution licence: it covers making copies, too, and that's mentioned explicitly in that clause too. Ok, to put a fine point on it: only acts of copying which are regulated by copyright law matter. Indeed. My non-distributed copying is regulated by copyright law, as I described under this Subject yesterday. So, I think distribution is not important and the prohibition of technical measures will apply to private copying in some situations. Hope that clarifies, -- 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]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it's someone else's GPL'd C code, then in your hypothetical example, he's supposed provide source to his students should they ask for it. That is my point. The Word document is the source. That is the format that he makes modifications in. This is not allowed by the GFDL. Don't be silly. I am talking about Microsoft Word. You should follow your own advice. Which version of Microsoft Word? I don't understand the point of your nit-picking here. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:36:14AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Adam McKenna wrote: But you can only use one copy at a time. You could make a good argument that the copies not in use are backup copies. (Remember, we're talking about documents here.) Well, US copyright law at least gives the right to make a backup copy so long as such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only. Clearly, if you're regularly using it, its no longer for archival purposes only. That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use one copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies on multiple machines, someone would have to *prove* that you were using more than one copy at a time, and convice the cort that your backup strategy does not comply with the license. I really don't see either thing happening in the case of a GFDL'd document. IOW, if it's a restriction at all, it's unenforcable. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:25:59PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 01:53:17PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Maybe in the US. Private copies in England have more limited scope and we seem to have limited or no right to make backups. This does comply with both letter and spirit of the Berne Union, as far as I can tell, so can't simply be ignored as a basket-case legal system. Still, the person making the private copy is not distributing to anyone. So as long as he doesn't employ a technological measure to prevent *himself* from making further copies, he still complies with the license. I don't see that: it says 'make or distribute' not 'make and distribute'. What's the difference? If you don't have permission from the law to make copies, then you need to follow the license terms. The license doesn't say that you have to give a copy of the document to anyone who wants one. (Indeed, it even allows a monetary fee for the service of copying). It says that you can't try to prevent the people you give copies to from making further copies. If you're not distributing, then you only need to make sure you're not preventing yourself from making further copies, and that would be a ridiculous thing to do in the first place. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:36:14AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Adam McKenna wrote: But you can only use one copy at a time. You could make a good argument that the copies not in use are backup copies. (Remember, we're talking about documents here.) Well, US copyright law at least gives the right to make a backup copy so long as such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only. Clearly, if you're regularly using it, its no longer for archival purposes only. That would need to be decided by a court. Obviously if you can only use one copy at a time, and your backup strategy involves keeping multiple copies on multiple machines, someone would have to *prove* that you were using more than one copy at a time, and convice the cort that your backup strategy does not comply with the license. Next we know, they'll be counting mirrored disks as multiple copies, and probably as using all the copies at once too. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:25:59PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Still, the person making the private copy is not distributing to anyone. So as long as he doesn't employ a technological measure to prevent *himself* from making further copies, he still complies with the license. I don't see that: it says 'make or distribute' not 'make and distribute'. What's the difference? One has 'or' and the other has 'and'. Your lack of attention to detail is troubling. If you don't have permission from the law to make copies, then you need to follow the license terms. The license doesn't say that you have to give a copy of the document to anyone who wants one. (Indeed, it even allows a monetary fee for the service of copying). It says that you can't try to prevent the people you give copies to from making further copies. No, the licence requires you 'not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.' It does not limit this to the people to whom you give copies. You can rewrite the licence if you wish, but that is not the licence being discussed now. Oh well, rewriting the anti-DRM makes a change from FDL supporters rewriting the description of the types of work it was designed for. http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2006-February/005511.html This licence is buggy and needs updating as soon as possible. -- 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]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 03:50:54AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] What's the difference? One has 'or' and the other has 'and'. Your lack of attention to detail is troubling. Thanks for pointing out the obvious with an obtuse, glib comment. I can see you're interested in having an intelligent discussion. The point was, if you're making copies for yourself, you only need to follow the license terms with regard to yourself. Whether the license says or or and in this case is irrelevant. of copying). It says that you can't try to prevent the people you give copies to from making further copies. No, the licence requires you 'not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.' It does not limit this to the people to whom you give copies. But if you haven't given the copies to anyone, you can't be trying to obstruct or control the reading or further copying done by anyone except yourself. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's wrong. You are insisting on a basically insane literal interpretation of the license. --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 11:44:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Rephrase: I don't agree the same goes for a brick wall because it's not technological, but sillier decisions have been made before. How exactly is a brick wall not technological? I think the protection offered by it is by its nature, not its technology. I've never seen a credible argument that it is a technological protection measure. Do you know of one in case law or statute? Do brick walls occur naturally? That's irrelevant. Once it has occurred, it pretty much relies on nature rather than further technological acts to function. Why is distribution important? It's a copyright licence, not a distribution licence: it covers making copies, too, and that's mentioned explicitly in that clause too. It's important because copies that are not made for distrubution are covered under both fair use and the right to make backups. Maybe in the US. Private copies in England have more limited scope and we seem to have limited or no right to make backups. This does comply with both letter and spirit of the Berne Union, as far as I can tell, so can't simply be ignored as a basket-case legal system. Hope that explains, -- 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]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
olive wrote: Later in the license they give as example of a transparent copy an XML file with a publicly available DTD. So openoffice document qualifies (as you now openoffice format is in XML format) although openoffice is not a generic text editor. Actually, you can't edit an OpenOffice document with a generic text editor, for OpenOffice compresses the document into a zip file. I think it is reasonable to interpret the GFDL by saying that if a document is fully understandable by free softwares, it is transparent. That sounds like a good thing for the FSF to have written in the license — unfortunately, though, they have not. Possibly, though, the GR is telling us to pretend as if they have. Some might argue that a court will read the GFDL in a more litteral sense. I do not think that because it seems very obvious that the copyright holder of a GFDL document don't want to restrict what you do with your own copy. Of course I might be wrong but for every license there is always a risk that a juge read it in a different way; Debian must read the license in the most probable way. Debian-legal has traditionally read licenses in a more pessimistic light; we didn't want to leave Debian — or its users — in danger of being sued for copyright infringement. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna wrote: Which kinds of non-distributional copying are not covered by fair use? Making multiple copies for simultaneous use (e.g., installing on several computers). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Andrew Saunders wrote: and the fact that one shouldn't summarize threads that are still active (I'll follow the 3 day rule [1] from now on). May I suggest that for threads which are currently active, you summarize them as something along the lines of: [Name] brought up [issue, w/ issue being a link to the OP in the list archives]. Discussion is ongoing. This has the benefit of notifying interested people (who don't spend all day reading -legal) that a discussion on the issue occuring. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 01:53:17PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Maybe in the US. Private copies in England have more limited scope and we seem to have limited or no right to make backups. This does comply with both letter and spirit of the Berne Union, as far as I can tell, so can't simply be ignored as a basket-case legal system. Still, the person making the private copy is not distributing to anyone. So as long as he doesn't employ a technological measure to prevent *himself* from making further copies, he still complies with the license. --Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/17/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using. I can see some difficulty in proving they are technological, but if a marker pen can be classed as a circumvention device, it seems possible that they might be technological measures sometimes, if they are doors or walls designed to prevent such copying. I don't have a clue what you're saying, here. Rephrase: I don't agree the same goes for a brick wall because it's not technological, but sillier decisions have been made before. This is silly. However, for the purposes of argument, let's say that the bricks are made of a graphite composite. Better yet, let's fall back to the atlantic ocean, where a someone transports a GFDL'd document by jet. Better yet, why don't we recognize that the phrase technical measures has a very specific meaning when we're talking about copyright protection? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act ...if we use the obvious meaning, then I have no problem agreeing with you that bricks do not constitute technical measures. But if you're not going to agree with me that the obvious meaning is the relevant meaning, then I see no reason to agree with you that examples involving bricks are not technical. Only when file permissions that you control are applied to copies you distribute to someone else. If you've given someone else a copy and they can't control the file permissions on a copy, that would be a problem. Why is distribution important? It's a copyright licence, not a distribution licence: it covers making copies, too, and that's mentioned explicitly in that clause too. Ok, to put a fine point on it: only acts of copying which are regulated by copyright law matter. Do you seriously believe the GFDL prohibits the atlantic ocean? It's very hard to argue that the atlantic ocean was designed to prevent unauthorised copying, which is part of the legislative definition here. That was my point: An argument which would treat the atlantic ocean as DRM must be wrong. And my point was: my argument would not treat the atlantic as DRM. Hope that explains, Not really. You've said that you have an argument. But I don't understand that argument. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 02:00:42PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation of the above-quoted requirement. You've indicated that it's difficult to do so, but the intent of this clause remains very clear. This requirement does not apply when making modified copies of GFDL'd documents for distribution by Debian. It would be extremely unfortunate for Debian to change its standards of freedom to merely distributable by Debian. Your suggestion is a red herring. The GFDL makes no mention of Debian. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 17 Mar 2006 14:29:18 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller writes: On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright. File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or you have not. Things like the execute bit, not to mention ACLs like those supported in AFS, NTFS, and other systems, make this claim transparently false. So don't do that. So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these two operations: cp some-gfdl-licensed-document.txt ~/local-copy.txt chmod 0700 ~/local-copy.txt The GFDL does not prohibit you from performing those two actions. The GFDL also does not prohibit you from turning off the power on your computer, even after you've done the above two steps. ? If you accept that file permissions are technical measures, the second step violates this provision of the GFDL: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. I can even see an argument that is a computer owner's responsibility to make every GFDL-licensed package file on that computer world-readable, since the owner (or his agent) copied the document into /usr/share/doc. I do not accept that file permissions are technical measures in the sense meant by the GFDL. They could be turned into technical measures in the appropriate context, but they're not technical measures in and of themselves. It would also be a violation of the GFDL for the computer's owner to restrict any user to a chroot environment, which is a rather clear violation of DFSG#9. No, it would not. It WOULD be a violation if the owner of the computer restricted the user to a chroot environment AND THEN used that chroot environment to deliver a GFDL'd document to the user in some way that prevented the user from copying it -- for example, allowing the user to only see the document displayed as a bitmap, and through chroot never allowing the user access to transparent copies. But even there, unless the computer owner has some kind of monopoly privilege over copies of that document, it isn't very likely that this will turn into a serious issue. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/17/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/14/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for working with .c source code, in the general case. If he is using it for all future modifications, then it _is_ the preferred form for modification. I don't know of any C compilers which will accept word documents. The C code is part of the document. He does not plan to run it through a compiler. He may want to just give it out to students. If he's the only author in question, GPLed rights don't matter -- he owns the copyright. If it's someone else's GPL'd C code, then in your hypothetical example, he's supposed provide source to his students should they ask for it. Of course, in some specific cases a word document might be acceptable. Likewise, in some specific cases a word document might be transparent. A Word document is never Transparent. From the GFDL: A Transparent copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public ... The Word format specification is not available to the public. You're making some sweeping generalizations here. There are many word documents. There are many word document formats. There are many word document format specifications. Some specifications which fit some word documents are available to the public. Others are not. Don't be silly. I am talking about Microsoft Word. You should follow your own advice. Which version of Microsoft Word? Some versions of Microsoft Word write some documents in formats which have publicly available specifications. This is true even when the user has selected a Microsoft Word option off the drop down that specifies the document format. Of course, just because this is true of one document won't guarantee it's true of another document. Likewise, just because one version of Word would save a document in a transparent format that doesn't mean that a later version of Word would do likewise. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 17 Mar 2006 14:58:12 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller writes: Put differently: the GFDL does not extend the scope of copyright law. Thus, it can not be taken to apply where copyright law does not apply. Can you elaborate on where exactly copyright law no longer applies? A potential infinity of examples exist. One example is that where copies are being legally made without any grant of copyright, you don't need any further grant of copyright to make those copies legal. For example: generic web browsing. Another issue is that copyright can't make copying legal when other laws are being broken. For example, if making copies requires breaking and entering someone else's house, the person who would be making those copies does not posses a legal copy to make further copies from. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller writes: On 17 Mar 2006 14:58:12 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller writes: Put differently: the GFDL does not extend the scope of copyright law. Thus, it can not be taken to apply where copyright law does not apply. Can you elaborate on where exactly copyright law no longer applies? A potential infinity of examples exist. I thought it was rather obvious that I meant that in the sense of the original scenario, and not in the general case. You claim that the GFDL can not be taken to apply where copyright law does not apply. Ignoring for the moment that copyleft by necessity goes beyond what is governed by copyright law, where in the scenario that I described does copyright law no longer apply to dealing with the work? Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Adam McKenna wrote: But you can only use one copy at a time. You could make a good argument that the copies not in use are backup copies. (Remember, we're talking about documents here.) Well, US copyright law at least gives the right to make a backup copy so long as such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only. Clearly, if you're regularly using it, its no longer for archival purposes only. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/17/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be extremely unfortunate for Debian to change its standards of freedom to merely distributable by Debian. On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Raul Miller wrote: Your suggestion is a red herring. The GFDL makes no mention of Debian. No red herring. It would be extremely unfortunate for Debian to change its standards of freedom to merely distributable. Freedom to modify and NOT distribute (or selectively distribute) are core freedoms IMO, though the FSF seems to disagree. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 03:39:46PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: I think that this very thread is an attempt to construct some reasonably self-consistent interpretations that we can ask the developers to decide between. The developers have already decided. Surely you can see there's a major problem with debian-legal if it doesn't actually know what Debian's position on a major licensing matter is, even directly after a GR... We know the conclusion. We don't know key parts of the interpretation and that seems to trouble some contributors. The position statement text approved is not as complete as your proposal. People can try to extrapolate it, and they can ask to verify that extrapolation. The alternative is further arguments here about the view of the project based on little more than guesswork. Voter fatigue seems to be a worry, but it seems the developers should have amended the options to cover minority worries explicitly if they didn't want to vote on this again, to either accommodate or rebut those views definitively. I think at least one clarification GR will probably get enough seconds to hold another vote. -- 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]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
is not published by M$. (there might be an exeption for some unusual very complex word documents not fully understandable by openoffice, but from my experience this is only a very tiny proportion of word documents using some special feature like macros, etc.). Your last sentence shows that the specification is not public. That is all that is required to keep it from being Transparent. Having a tool that partially implements the spec does not completely document the spec. The whole specification is indeed not public. What I claim is that a document using only word features fully understandable by openoffice might be considered as trandsparent since it use only spec available to the public: the subset of word fully understandable by openoffice is public. If a document use features that are not available to the public it is indeed not transparent. But there are very few such documents. Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The whole specification is indeed not public. What I claim is that a document using only word features fully understandable by openoffice might be considered as trandsparent since it use only spec available to the public: the subset of word fully understandable by openoffice is public. If a document use features that are not available to the public it is indeed not transparent. But there are very few such documents. My understanding is that the intent behind the transparent definition is specifically to rule out things such as Word documents. I.e., this is by design, not accident. What's questionable (and what I take the GR to make a decision on) is whether the intent was to rule out oppenoffice or lyx. But nonetheless, here is the full definition: A Transparent copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text. A copy that is not Transparent is called Opaque. Are really you suggesting that Word documents qualify? Not only does the public availability requirement refer to the specification of the format (not the contents of the document), but there's still the question of whether it can be edited straightforwardly with generic text editors. Note that these two requirements are connected with an implicit and, along with a requirement about suitability for input to text formatters. Is it straightforward to have to: - Run the document through something to parse the word format into plain text. - Proofread it for formatting or other errors. - Edit it - Reverse the process by running the document through something to translate it back into word format. - Proof it for formatting or other errors yet again. What's more, is the final step even possible without access to MS word? I think there's a discussion to be had about whether it's a legitimate goal for a free software license to rule out proprietary formats such as word documents. But I think it's quite clear that the GFDL does rule out using word documents as source -- though the recent GR confuses this somewhat. -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Jeremy Hankins wrote: olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The whole specification is indeed not public. What I claim is that a document using only word features fully understandable by openoffice might be considered as trandsparent since it use only spec available to the public: the subset of word fully understandable by openoffice is public. If a document use features that are not available to the public it is indeed not transparent. But there are very few such documents. My understanding is that the intent behind the transparent definition is specifically to rule out things such as Word documents. I.e., this is by design, not accident. What's questionable (and what I take the GR to make a decision on) is whether the intent was to rule out oppenoffice or lyx. But nonetheless, here is the full definition: A Transparent copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public, that is suitable for revising the document straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file format whose markup, or absence of markup, has been arranged to thwart or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. An image format is not Transparent if used for any substantial amount of text. A copy that is not Transparent is called Opaque. Are really you suggesting that Word documents qualify? Not only does the public availability requirement refer to the specification of the format (not the contents of the document), but there's still the question of whether it can be edited straightforwardly with generic text editors. Note that these two requirements are connected with an implicit and, along with a requirement about suitability for input to text formatters. Is it straightforward to have to: - Run the document through something to parse the word format into plain text. - Proofread it for formatting or other errors. - Edit it - Reverse the process by running the document through something to translate it back into word format. - Proof it for formatting or other errors yet again. What's more, is the final step even possible without access to MS word? I think there's a discussion to be had about whether it's a legitimate goal for a free software license to rule out proprietary formats such as word documents. But I think it's quite clear that the GFDL does rule out using word documents as source -- though the recent GR confuses this somewhat. The greatest problem is that the GFDL is really badly written and although I have always defended that it is free, it would be very usefull if the FSF could one for all resolve these ambiguities. Later in the license they give as example of a transparent copy an XML file with a publicly available DTD. So openoffice document qualifies (as you now openoffice format is in XML format) although openoffice is not a generic text editor. I think it is reasonable to interpret the GFDL by saying that if a document is fully understandable by free softwares, it is transparent. I say that it is reasonable that if we denote by WORD* the subset of WORD fully understandable by openoffice; then a document in the WORD* format is transparent since the specification of WORD* is public. Moreover a document in WORD* can be make transparent by storing it in the openoffice format. I know that it is not the letter of the GFDL but I think that the litteral reading of this license give rise to wrong conclusions. This was probably the message of the last vote: obviously Debian developpers have not said that a license that prohibits storing its own copy without reading permission is free; they have said that the GFDL actually didn't say that. Some might argue that a court will read the GFDL in a more litteral sense. I do not think that because it seems very obvious that the copyright holder of a GFDL document don't want to restrict what you do with your own copy. Of course I might be wrong but for every license there is always a risk that a juge read it in a different way; Debian must read the license in the most probable way. For example, some people try to have a court declaring the GPL illegal which would maybe make GPL documents unredistribuable. I think it is not probable that it will succeed but the risk is never zero. The fact that the risk is not zero does not make GPL softwares unfree. Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
I think there's a discussion to be had about whether it's a legitimate goal for a free software license to rule out proprietary formats such as word documents. But I think it's quite clear that the GFDL does rule out using word documents as source -- though the recent GR confuses this somewhat.he fact that it is or not legitimate For the fact that it is or not legitimate to restrict free document to open format; I would say that IMHO it is at least acceptable since otherwise it would make it unusable by someone who have decided to use only free softwares. Another consequence would be that a derivative work of a free document suitable for the main section could not be suitable anymore for the main section (a document with a propriatary format depend on a nonfree software). It seems clearly in the siprit of copyleft that you can require that all derivative works which qualify for the main section still qualify for the main section. Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/17/06, olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] try to have a court declaring the GPL illegal which would maybe make GPL documents unredistribuable. Uhmm, if you mean Wallace... The GPL is an egregious and pernicious misuse of copyright that rises to the level of an antitrust violation. The GPL requires control of all licensees' software patent rights as well as source code copyrights: Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.; GPL Preamble; [emphasis added ] (see also the GPL sec. 7 ). The preceding quotation clearly expresses the anti-competitive nature of the GPL contract. Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit has recognized the potential for copyright misuse to rise to the level of an antitrust violation: The doctrine of misuse prevents copyright holders from leveraging their limited monopoly to allow them control of areas outside the monopoly. AM Records, Inc. v.Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2001); see Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 166 F.3d 772, 792-95 (5th Cir. 1999); Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Ass'n, 121 F.3d 516, 520-21 (1997), amended, 133 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 1998); DSC Communications Corp. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 81 F.3d 597, 601-02 (5th Cir.1996); Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970, 976-79 (4th Cir. 1990).; ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGIES OF WI, LLC v. WIREDATA, INC., 350 F.3d 640 (7th. Cir. 2003). --- If copyleft constitutes copyright misuse (note that it doesn't even have to raise to the level of an antitrust violation), then abuser's copyrights in the GPL'd works are unenforceable until the misuse is purged (i.e. forever in the case of the GPL'd works flying all over the net -- you just can't withdraw publicly available GPL'd stuff), As a result, anyone could infringe the copyrights in the GPL'd works with impunity. At least in US. regards, alexander.
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
olive [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The greatest problem is that the GFDL is really badly written and although I have always defended that it is free, it would be very usefull if the FSF could one for all resolve these ambiguities. Yes. And there's still some hope that it will happen, but evidently not until GPLv3 is taken care of. Later in the license they give as example of a transparent copy an XML file with a publicly available DTD. So openoffice document qualifies (as you now openoffice format is in XML format) although openoffice is not a generic text editor. Yes. But XML is editable with a generic text editor, and it's quite straightforward to programmatically translate it into other formats. The same cannot be said for word documents. I think it is reasonable to interpret the GFDL by saying that if a document is fully understandable by free softwares, it is transparent. I say that it is reasonable that if we denote by WORD* the subset of WORD fully understandable by openoffice; then a document in the WORD* format is transparent since the specification of WORD* is public. Moreover a document in WORD* can be make transparent by storing it in the openoffice format. Then what purpose did RMS have with the bit about publicly available specifications and being editable with generic text editors? What was he ruling out, if not things like word documents? -- Jeremy Hankins [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/14/06, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Using a pseudonym to make it harder to identify you is in clear violation of the above-quoted requirement. You've indicated that it's difficult to do so, but the intent of this clause remains very clear. This requirement does not apply when making modified copies of GFDL'd documents for distribution by Debian. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/14/06, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a counter example: A word document is not the preferred form for working with .c source code, in the general case. If he is using it for all future modifications, then it _is_ the preferred form for modification. I don't know of any C compilers which will accept word documents. Of course, in some specific cases a word document might be acceptable. Likewise, in some specific cases a word document might be transparent. A Word document is never Transparent. From the GFDL: A Transparent copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public ... The Word format specification is not available to the public. You're making some sweeping generalizations here. There are many word documents. There are many word document formats. There are many word document format specifications. Some specifications which fit some word documents are available to the public. Others are not. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright. File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or you have not. Things like the execute bit, not to mention ACLs like those supported in AFS, NTFS, and other systems, make this claim transparently false. So don't do that. File permissions control more forms of access than just who can copy a work -- but even the read bit taken in isolation is a mechanism that effectively controls access to a work. The mere existence of file permissions are not the problem here. Giving someone a copy of a work and arranging file permissions so they can't read that work is bad, but nothing requires you do that. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Same thing goes for a brick wall -- a brick wall can prevent unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using. I can see some difficulty in proving they are technological, but if a marker pen can be classed as a circumvention device, it seems possible that they might be technological measures sometimes, if they are doors or walls designed to prevent such copying. I don't have a clue what you're saying, here. Same thing goes for the atlantic ocean -- the atlantic ocean can prevent unauthorized copying, in the sense you're using. Notice a trend here? None of this has anything to do with preventing someone who has a copy from making unauthorized copies. That situation isn't my main concern. File permissions clearly obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute as well as meet the definition of a technological measure. Only when file permissions that you control are applied to copies you distribute to someone else. If you've given someone else a copy and they can't control the file permissions on a copy, that would be a problem. But I don't see why this should be considered a serious issue. The other things you mention are how technological measures are sometimes used, but that's not how it's phrased in law or in the FDL. Do you seriously believe the GFDL prohibits the atlantic ocean? It's very hard to argue that the atlantic ocean was designed to prevent unauthorised copying, which is part of the legislative definition here. That was my point: An argument which would treat the atlantic ocean as DRM must be wrong. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller writes: On 15 Mar 2006 00:11:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright. File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or you have not. Things like the execute bit, not to mention ACLs like those supported in AFS, NTFS, and other systems, make this claim transparently false. So don't do that. So is it acceptable for the GFDL to prohibit me from performing these two operations: cp some-gfdl-licensed-document.txt ~/local-copy.txt chmod 0700 ~/local-copy.txt ? If you accept that file permissions are technical measures, the second step violates this provision of the GFDL: You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. I can even see an argument that is a computer owner's responsibility to make every GFDL-licensed package file on that computer world-readable, since the owner (or his agent) copied the document into /usr/share/doc. It would also be a violation of the GFDL for the computer's owner to restrict any user to a chroot environment, which is a rather clear violation of DFSG#9. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller writes: On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That situation isn't my main concern. File permissions clearly obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute as well as meet the definition of a technological measure. Only when file permissions that you control are applied to copies you distribute to someone else. If you've given someone else a copy and they can't control the file permissions on a copy, that would be a problem. But I don't see why this should be considered a serious issue. It is a serious issue because the GFDL clause that MJ Ray quoted above is clearly not restricted to copies that you distribute. It says copies that you make or distribute. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 17 Mar 2006 14:31:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller writes: On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I don't see why this should be considered a serious issue. It is a serious issue because the GFDL clause that MJ Ray quoted above is clearly not restricted to copies that you distribute. It says copies that you make or distribute. But file permissions do not constitute a restriction on further copying unless the copy with the file permissions is distributed. Put differently: the GFDL does not extend the scope of copyright law. Thus, it can not be taken to apply where copyright law does not apply. -- Raul
Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Raul Miller writes: On 17 Mar 2006 14:31:11 -0500, Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raul Miller writes: On 3/15/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I don't see why this should be considered a serious issue. It is a serious issue because the GFDL clause that MJ Ray quoted above is clearly not restricted to copies that you distribute. It says copies that you make or distribute. But file permissions do not constitute a restriction on further copying unless the copy with the file permissions is distributed. File permissions surely do (obstruct or) control which users of the system may read (or further copy) the file. The GFDL is not written such that distribution of the copy is required for it to apply; to the contrary, the first paragraph of section 1 includes any form of copying that is reserved under copyright law. Put differently: the GFDL does not extend the scope of copyright law. Thus, it can not be taken to apply where copyright law does not apply. Can you elaborate on where exactly copyright law no longer applies? This claim seems to be in tension with copyleft's requirement that derivative works (the creation of which are reserved under copyright law) use a compatible license. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
