On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 10:34, Branden Robinson wrote: > > What, exactly, do we consider harmful about it? I'm not convinced that > > ``You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading > > or further copying of the copies you make or distribute.'' [2] is enough > > to make GFDL docs non-free even without invariant (&c) sections; applying > > that to things like an padlock or an off-switch on a photocopier doesn't > > seem entirely reasonable to me. > > I'm not convinced either, but I do see a potential threat to freedom > here. Can someone propose some rider language that would retract the > claws of that clause a little bit, such that most of us can agree it > couldn't be applied in unfree ways?
Strike it and replace it with: Each time you distribute the Document (or any work based on the Document), you grant to the recipient and all third parties that receive copies indirectly through the recipient the authority to gain access to the work by descrambling a scrambled work, decrypting an encrypted work, or otherwise avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or impairing a technological measure effectively controlling access to a work. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 "On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson
