Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode:
>
>
>>>I think this is overly broad. What about the following?
>>>
>>>"You must not add any functionality to programs licensed under this
>>>License which may not be removed, by you or any third party, according
>>>to applicable law. Such functionalit
* Nathanael Nerode:
>> I think this is overly broad. What about the following?
>>
>> "You must not add any functionality to programs licensed under this
>> License which may not be removed, by you or any third party, according
>> to applicable law. Such functionality includes, but is not limite
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode:
>
>
>>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. Accordingly, no program lic
* Nathanael Nerode:
> 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. Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 08:44:21 -0800 Josh Triplett wrote:
> This does raise another interesting point: there are laws in some
> jurisdictions which mandate the use of certain measures to protect
> privacy in certain situations, such as patient medical records. It
> would be problematic if this clau
Walter Landry wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>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 require
On 1/23/06, Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> A legitimate privacy device may function very much like DRM. Consider
> classified environments, where you really don't want people to copy
> things around willy-nilly. Making it hard to copy information won't
> eliminate leaks, but it
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 copyr
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:30:29PM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> If you want to be charitable, you might say that "effective" here is
> being used in the sense of "effectively, it's a security mechanism".
> But whether you want to be charitable or not, it's clearly not being
> used in a way that r
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A security mechanism which has been defeated by a piece of software is
> not "imperfect". If I post my root password to this list, it is not
> an "imperfect but still effective" security mechanism; it is useless
> and defeated.
But, as you note below,
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:49:09AM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> I think that "effective" does not mean "perfect". Having a police
> force is an effective way of combatting crime, but it is far from
> perfect.
A security mechanism which has been defeated by a piece of software
is not "imperfect".
Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There seems to be some rift between the law and reality, though. If the
> > law is taken literally, it's a no-op: it forbids writing software that
> > can't be written (if you write software for
I wrote:
> Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a
> technological measure which effectively controls access to any
> work."
Walter Landry wrote:
>Again, writing this sentence into the license doesn't make it true.
Well, no, but I think it is in fact true.
>It is decided by exte
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
On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> (Unfortunately, I don't speak that language ...)
Hey legals, drop this link
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=effectively
to poor Maynard.
regards,
alexander.
On 1/20/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There seems to be some rift between the law and reality, though. If the
> law is taken literally, it's a no-op: it forbids writing software that
> can't be written (if you write software for an effective protection
> scheme, then, well, it's n
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:58:08PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Accordingly, no program licensed under this License is a
> > technological measure which effectively controls access to any
> > work."
>
> Again, writing this sentence into the license doesn't make it true.
> It is decided by exter
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 mac
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> "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.
I'm not sure how a program _can_ require authority of a copyright
holder? Did you mean "The exerci
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the DMCA actually speaks about "access to the work"
> (17 U.S.C. 1201):
>
>(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide,
>or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device,
>component, or par
20 matches
Mail list logo
