Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:40:25AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > [you seem to have attributed my words to Manoj -- but we are different > people] > >> On May 2, 2004, at 14:25, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> > >> > "obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies >> > you make or distribute" >> > >> > In other words, clause isn't about copying, but about "further >> > copying". >> >> I read it as: >> >> (obstruct OR control) (the reading OR further copying) of the >> copies you (make OR distribute) > > I'll grant that my observation about "further copying" is moot, however, > the phrase you've quoted has no verb, so you have not addressed the > other aspect of my argument. > >> > I'm fairly confident the phrase "technical measures to obstruct or >> > control" refers to the concept of having a legal right to obstruct >> > control the reading or copying of the document after distribution. >> >> If they wanted to prohibit you from using legal measures --- the DMCA, >> for example --- why did they say "technical measures" instead of "legal >> measures"? > > Because they are specifically talking about technical measures to enforce > intellectual property rights.
Well, if they had been, they should have said so. But they didn't actually say that. They just said "technical measures". As far as I know, that isn't restricted to less than its normal meaning in legalese. In fact, it appears to have been chosen by DMCA authors *because* of its broadness. It's an overly broad restriction. <snip> >> No, it does not prohibit bloat. I does, however, prohibit legally >> requiring bloat. > > If by bloat, you mean "bloat in program binaries", this is true. Oh. Well, the GFDL with Invariant Sections requires bloat in distributed binaries. > However, for example, the DFSG doesn't require that bloat be removed > from program sources. <snip> -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
