Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hrrm. We need a different clause then. >> >> "No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work, >> shall require the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in >> order to gain access to that work. > >This is too broad. If I have a machine on the internet which is >secured using GPL'd programs, I certainly do not give anyone and >everyone the legal authority to see what is on the machine.
That's using your authority as the *machine owner*, though. Not your authority as a *copyright holder*. That's precisely the distinction I'm trying to make here, though I clearly haven't succeeded. >That is the basic problem with these anti-DRM clauses: differentiating >between DRM and legitimate privacy controls is basically impossible. I think it is possible. It requires a sharp focus on the *legal* issues, since the technology is not different, but the legal basis is. A legitimate privacy control may control access to many things -- but it does *not* exert control over works you have published (since they're, well, *public*.) -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This space intentionally left blank. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
