| |||||||||||||
Is Okular doing the right thing?Is Okular doing the right thing?Posted Jun 2, 2009 8:04 UTC (Tue) by PO8 (guest, #41661)In reply to: Okular is doing the right thing by MattPerry Parent article: Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions "Implementing the spec as designed" is not an excuse for putative bad behavior here. If some portion of a spec called for program behavior that was racist or sexist, or would intentionally damage the user's software, computer or person, you surely would be willing to disregard that portion of the spec? Specifications capture intent; implementors with different intent must choose whether to respect a specification. Disregarding a spec is not to be done lightly—the willingness to faithfully implement specs is a form of social contract that makes the spec model work. But the broader social contract sometimes takes precedence. In this case, the decision to be made is whether a spec clause that will to some degree restrict the fair use activities of less-knowledgeable users is a serious enough problem to warrant deliberately violating the specification. I can see the argument for both sides here, but certainly the issue deserves more serious consideration than "one must always blindly follow specifications."
(Log in to post comments)
Is Okular doing the right thing? Posted Jun 2, 2009 14:16 UTC (Tue) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link]
> "Implementing the spec as designed" is not an excuse for putative bad
> behavior here.
There's nothing bad about the behavior. Please elaborate if you disagree.
> If some portion of a spec called for program behavior that
You are comparing apples to oranges. There's is nothing malicious or harmful by setting a flag that says "I don't want this to be able to be printed, or text to be copyable."
There are legitimate reasons for restricting the copying and printing of documents. I work for a medical device manufacturer and we restrict the copying of text and printing of PDFs of our standard operating procedures. These are not restricted to prevent fair use by our employees but to make sure that there are not printed copies of older documents that are filed away and used by people for procedures. Such use of old documents can and have caused much expensive trouble with the FDA in the past. If an employee needs an older version to print, or needs text from an older version of a document, they can contact the document owner to get a copy of the content they require.
In this case, restricting the copying and printing enforces policies in our company that is intended to minimize costly mistakes.
> In this case, the decision to be made is whether a spec clause that will
No fair use rights are being affected. You can still take a screenshot of the content. You can still type in the text that you cannot copy. As I stated before, fair use does not mean convenience.
Is Okular doing the right thing? Posted Jun 2, 2009 19:58 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
Fair Use does not mean convenience. Free Software means convenience. Artificially enforced inconvenience is incompatible with the Free Software ethos. If you don't like what Free Software is about, what are you doing here?
Is Okular doing the right thing? Posted Jun 2, 2009 21:51 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]
Free software means you, as the user of the software, can do what you want - you can set the configuration option or you can rebuild the package to change default, just as you can decide that it's inconvenient that cp observes the system access rules and change it so it lets you copy files regardless of the permission bits, assuming it's a system that you can install your own kernel on.
Free software ideals don't define what the software does out of the box, just that you're allowed to change it.
Okular has kindly provided a configuration bit to let you change it without doing any programming. Say, "Thank you", don't say "But, you should do it my way by default and if you don't you're violating the ideals of free software."
Is Okular doing the right thing? Posted Jun 3, 2009 18:19 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
I'm not talking to the Okular developers. They can do whatever the hell they want, and it's none of my business. I'm talking to the Debian maintainers of the Okular package, who signed an agreement to abide by the Debian Social Contract. These package maintainers are catering to people who are not members of the Debian community at the expense of people who are, in violation of that Contract.
Is Okular doing the right thing? Posted Jun 3, 2009 23:28 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]
I don't think there's anything about the default setting of the Okular option that "violates the Debian Social Contract" or violates the DFSG, unless there's a lot of understood subtext that I'm not aware of as an outsider. The software is, to the best of my knowledge, appropriately licensed, modifiable, and redistributable.
But, as noted, I'm an outsider, and if the Debian community feels violated by the default setting of a user-changeable option, by all means, change it...
Is Okular doing the right thing? Posted Jun 4, 2009 1:15 UTC (Thu) by JoeF (guest, #4486) [Link]
"I work for a medical device manufacturer and we restrict the copying of text and printing of PDFs of our standard operating procedures"
And how exactly does that enforce "to make sure that there are not printed copies of older documents that are filed away and used by people for procedures"?
Is Okular doing the right thing? Posted Jun 6, 2009 1:24 UTC (Sat) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]
The word "enforce" is in general somewhat ambiguous about to what extent the object is absolutely obtained (see the variation in meanings given by a dictionary), but the post to which JoeF replies already makes clear (in more than one paragraph) that its author is aware that the software does not absolutely prevent copying.
(So the answer to the question how ... does that enforce ... is: it urges or causes (to quote one dictionary) that result both by informing the user that an author of the document has requested that the text not be copied or printed, and by requiring the user to go to extra effort to copy or print the document.)
The question under discussion is not whether copying is absolutely prevented (that question has already been answered both in the original article and in the post to which JoeF replies), but whether the software is effective in reducing costly mistakes, and whether there are any practical steps we can take to improve the tradeoff of preventing rare but costly mistakes against the cost of making it less convenient to copy when it is appropriate to copy.
(In this case, without yet having read the discussion in the bug report, I'd suggest that the dialog box could be improved by changing the text to An author of the document has requested not to copy text from this document., and going on to inform the user how they can nevertheless copy from the document. Adding a button to the dialog box would be something to consider, though the trade-off is that users don't then get much chance to think about the reason for the request. Again, I haven't read the discussion in the bug report.)
And more generally under discussion is how one might handle other cases where there is some desire to hinder some user actions ("limit freedom") to prevent harm or achieve some other desirable result.
Is Okular doing the right thing? Posted Jun 3, 2009 9:35 UTC (Wed) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link]
I personally see this as being equivalent to a courtesy lock on a bathroom in a house. By default, if someone clicks the button on the knob, anyone else trying to enter the bathroom cannot, because the knob won't turn. But, grab a toothpick and "pop", the doorknob is unlocked.
There can be a great many reasons why someone might want to force their way into a bathroom (the vast majority of them having to do with emergencies). In general, it's to handle circumstances unforeseen by the person who set the lock.
The same goes here. Someone sets a lock on a PDF, and it's an advisory measure. (If it really, really mattered, they would have encrypted it.) The lock says "Hey, I don't think you should copy this." It's an advisory mechanism, though, and easily bypassed. And that's how it should be. The person bypassing the lock at least has a chance of knowing the intent and desires of the author.
If I were to propose a change, it would be this: Convert the "DRM says you cannot do this" dialog that has a global, sticky override flag stored elsewhere to a "DRM asks that you not do this" dialog that has a per-instance override button that says "Copy anyway." That way, the user at least gets informed of the author's intent, even if they choose to override it. Overriding is easy, but not so easy that the user never learns of the author's desires. If you want to get fancy, remember the decision per-document, but don't make it global by default.
The current mechanism of simply disabling DRM checks across the board would be equivalent to banishing courtesy locks on bathroom doors in my analogy above. It totally disables and removes the mechanism provided for stating intent.
Is Okular doing the right thing? Posted Jun 3, 2009 12:40 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]
I would probably phrase the statement more like "The author has indicated that this document has restricted circulation and may not be copied." And the two action buttons would the be "Cancel" and "I have the author's permission to proceed."
Is Okular doing the right thing? Posted Jun 3, 2009 15:25 UTC (Wed) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]
Err, no.
If we need language like this, the second option should of course be "That's MY choice, not his"
Is Okular doing the right thing? Posted Jun 3, 2009 23:29 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]
I'd be perfectly happy with "Proceed anyway" ;-)
Is Okular doing the right thing? Posted Jun 11, 2009 6:13 UTC (Thu) by huaz (guest, #10168) [Link]
> "Implementing the spec as designed" is not an excuse for putative bad
> behavior here.
And who are you to decide which behavior is bad?
Come on, there is a standard and the code implemented it.
There is an option for you to turn it off if you care.
So spend five seconds clicking it off and stop whining!
|
|||||||||||||