Raul Miller wrote: <snip> > I appreciate that you think that chmod -r is control, but since (from > a user point of view) it's equivalent to not making the file available > for download I don't think that this is a meaningful point of view.
As mentioned elsewhere, the problem is that the GFDL applies to *copying*, not just to *distribution*, and under copyright law this is perfectly normal, legal, and correct. (Although perhaps it shouldn't be.) > You might as well claim that deleting text from a region which is not > immutable constitutes control, that turning off the power to the machine > is control, that deleting the file is control or that compressing the > file is control. > > Despite the fact that the copyright notices use the phrase "technical > measures" it is still a legal document. > > That said -- I'm not trying to convince people that the GFDL as it > currently stands should be considered DFSG free. I'm ambivalent about > that. What I am trying to say is that some significant arguments against > the GFDL don't really make sense. Only if you don't understand the broad scope of copyright law. :-) Hopefully you get it now? -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
