On 4/13/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Your question, as stated, asks for an explanation for a state of affairs > > which does not exist. > > My question is: why do some people claim that the FDL wasn't drafted > to prohibit all technical measures that obstruct or control reading or > further copying? > > So, you claim that no-one claims the FDL wasn't drafted to cover *all* > technical measures?
No, I don't make that claim about what other people claim. I was not making a point about claims. I was making a point about the FDL, in the context of your question. > > I find it relatively trivial to show that this state > > of affairs does not exist. > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/04/msg00034.html > > That message is irrelevant because it is concerned with neither the > FDL's drafting, nor the copyright law meaning of technical measures. > It tells me that you don't think the FDL covers technical measures, > but that seems to be because you have a personal definition of > technical measures based on dictionaries rather than the bad laws. I was addressing your question as you stated it. You did not use the term "technical measures". That term refers to a legal instrument which has become available to copyright holders. You did use a term which was similar to some [non-legal] dictionary definitions of the phrase "technical measures". If my response was irrelevant, this seems to be because I was responding to something you wrote which was also irrelevant. -- Raul
