Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 09:31:26PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >>Is it really DFSG-free to have a license which prohibits placing a copy >>you make of the document on an encrypted filesystem? Applying chmod o-r >>to it (on a multiuser system)? Putting a copy of it in a safe? > > > No, but I think that's an extreme (or absurd) interpretation of the > GFDL. Don't some people consider those to be just bugs?
A license bug is nonetheless a bug -- a bug which can easily be abused by the licensor to win damages and issue injunctions; or in this country, where there's something called "criminal copyright infringement", one which could be abused by a zealous prosecutor, even without the consent of the licensor. This is in a certain sense a security bug for the license: a bug which allows the licensee (that's Debian and its users) to be totally screwed. As opposed to a relatively harmless bug in the license, like GPL v.2's requirement of a ChangeLog in every file (which could be provided if demanded, but is annoying.) We believe that *if* we have clarification from the licensor as to the meaning, we can rely on their interpretation (this has a fairly sound legal basis). But if we *don't*, which is unfortunately the case most of the time, we have to read the license conservatively. The GFDL, as a "general" license intended for use by many people, could be interpreted differently by any of many different licensors. We don't even know exactly what the FSF thinks this clause covers; we can't pretend to know what Joe Licensor thinks it covers. It would be perfectly reasonable for Joe Licensor to take a strict reading; and to start enforcing it after years of delay, saying, "Well, I assumed everyone knew that it meant what it said literally! I didn't imagine anyone would interpret it so creatively!". I expect he'd win in court. > I don't know that you can reasonably combine a relaxed reading of the > DFSG with a strict reading of the GFDL. Why be generous to one document > and not the other? One is a set of "guidelines" which Debian voluntarily adheres to. The other is a legal document. I think it's pretty easy to read the "guidelines" in a relaxed manner, and read the legal document in a strict manner. After all, courts routinely read legal documents in a strict manner, and their opinion is what we have to think about when reading legal documents. Ever tried to get a court to read a written contract in a "relaxed" manner? Not very much chance of success, not in the US anyway. > Cheers, > Hamish -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]