[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fsfe-uk] FDL and DRM, was: DRM, TPM, or what?

From: Alex Hudson
Subject: Re: [Fsfe-uk] FDL and DRM, was: DRM, TPM, or what?
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 07:54:12 +0100

On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 07:27 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Alex Hudson <address@hidden>
> > [...] - my file permissions don't affect the reading or further
> > copying of other people's copies, and the GFDL doesn't entitle people to
> > access to my copies.
> Are you claiming the FDL only covers the copying, not the
> copyright (clearly nuts IMO: it's a copyright licence)

Nope, I'm not claiming that. There are things other than copying that
are covered by copyright. But that sentence above still stands: if I
haven't given someone a copy of the document, I don't have an obligation
to them.

> and that modifying a copy isn't partly making the modified copy
> (possible, but I've never found any evidence for that)?

It may come down to the process involved, but in general modifying a
file isn't making a copy. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be
treated the same as modifying something physical: even if there were a
copy made in RAM or something while you modified it, it would be treated
as temporary and "an integral and essential part of a technological
process" (Copyright & Related Rights Act, 2003).

The file permissions thing is possibly a red herring, I don't think it
would even count as modification of the work.

> Call this an argument? ;-)

No, I call it "Herbert" :o)



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]