Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
Posted Jun 2, 2009 12:10 UTC (Tue) by halla (subscriber, #14185)In reply to: Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions by knan
Parent article: Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
* it is demanded by the standard
* there are users who need these bits
* it is a basic courtesy towards the content generators to abide by their license, just as we expect
others to abide by our licenses.
Posted Jun 2, 2009 12:34 UTC (Tue)
by knan (subscriber, #3940)
[Link] (9 responses)
It's none of the standards business. Those flags can never be more than advisory.
* there are users who need these bits
Default to off, let them turn it on. Kiosk mode. Don't inconvenience everyone.
* it is a basic courtesy towards the content generators to abide by their license, just as we expect others to abide by our licenses.
So if I write in my document that you need to wear a pink fedora while reading it, you'd want a program to enforce that by default? It's silly. Let the reader decide whether what the author demands is acceptable or not.
Posted Jun 2, 2009 13:06 UTC (Tue)
by halla (subscriber, #14185)
[Link] (8 responses)
You wanted to know the reasons: these are the reasons, so now you know the reeasons.
You may disagree with the authors of okular and xpdf, but, well, your disagreement is
irrelevant. You're
not doing the work, nor are you adding any well-considered well-formulated opinion, you are
merely
playing dummy and were asking a rather fatuous rhetorical question, to which you now have
the answer.
And that's what you'll have to live with.
(And, of course, you should realize the complete equivalence of " Let the reader decide
whether
what the
author demands is acceptable or not." and "Let the developer decide whether what the library
author
demands is acceptable or not", and that you have just given everyone a free pass on license
violation of all
the software you have ever written. If any.)
Posted Jun 2, 2009 14:04 UTC (Tue)
by sergey (guest, #31763)
[Link]
> You wanted to know the reasons: these are the reasons, so now you know the reeasons.
This is a very poor reasoning, especially in the light of "standards" such as OOXML.
Posted Jun 2, 2009 14:18 UTC (Tue)
by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)
[Link]
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/play.html
I'm quoting from it:
> To access my Debian play machine ssh to
[password ommited]
> I give no-one permission to distribute
I'm not completely sure that the password here is long enough to be protected by copyright, but even if it isn't, it's easy to make a similar example that is enforceable. Thus I could have easily used my browser using my browser to circumevent the license of that page. But out of respect to the author of that page I avoid that.
In fact, most common browsers include functionality such as "send page" and that help you violate copyright licensing and easily publish the results. The sky is not falling, AFAIK. The internet is alive and kicking.
Posted Jun 2, 2009 14:29 UTC (Tue)
by rjdymond (guest, #51625)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Jun 2, 2009 15:32 UTC (Tue)
by halla (subscriber, #14185)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jun 2, 2009 16:39 UTC (Tue)
by rjdymond (guest, #51625)
[Link] (2 responses)
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, behaving unto others as you would like them to behave towards you (which is a good idea that I can agree with) does not imply abiding by someone else's licence because I expect them to abide by mine. To suggest it does is to render the fine phrase meaningless. To translate into the narrow realm of licences: Yes: You should comply with the GPL (on somebody else's work) if you expect others to comply with the GPL (on your own work). No: You should comply with an absurdly restrictive licence (on somebody else's work) if you expect others to comply with the GPL (on your own work). Again, the devil is in the details (of the licences).
Posted Jun 2, 2009 18:59 UTC (Tue)
by halla (subscriber, #14185)
[Link] (1 responses)
No, your personal interpretation of the relative importance and
Posted Jun 2, 2009 19:59 UTC (Tue)
by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
[Link]
Personally, I think the entire discussion is pointless. Enforcing copyright claims through coercion is both immoral (IMHO, though that classification is far from arbitrary) and ineffectual, and claiming copyright sans coercion is simply ineffectual. Better to just accept reality and move on.
Posted Jun 2, 2009 16:54 UTC (Tue)
by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)
[Link]
Does it imply I'm allowed to freely distribute anything that is not protected by technical measures? Such as standard GPLed code?
Posted Jun 4, 2009 1:31 UTC (Thu)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (3 responses)
Yet, the browser pops up a dialog asking what to do with the cookie.
Posted Jun 4, 2009 10:37 UTC (Thu)
by nye (subscriber, #51576)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 6, 2009 19:31 UTC (Sat)
by Hawke (guest, #6978)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 11, 2009 12:17 UTC (Thu)
by oblio (guest, #33465)
[Link]
Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
> play.coker.com.au as root, the password is
> this password. If you want to share
> information on this machine you must
> give the URL to this web site
Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
(And, of course, you should realize the complete equivalence of " Let the reader decide whether what the author demands is acceptable or not." and "Let the developer decide whether what the library author demands is acceptable or not", and that you have just given everyone a free pass on license violation of all the software you have ever written. If any.)
You seem to be saying that if I choose to ignore/violate the licence restrictions on somebody else's work, then I am (morally?) obligated to allow others to ignore/violate the licence restrictions on my own work(s). Which is entirely wrong, because it doesn't take the details of the licences into account. Whether violating licence A is as acceptable as violating licence B surely depends on those details. (And yes, the answer will be a matter of opinion, but that's beside the point.)
Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
If you're not prepared to do that, you forfeit the other's consideration for you.
Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
Yes, I'm saying that you should behave unto others as you would like them to behave towards you.
Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by a content creator aren't
absolute values. What you think is reasonable might be unreasonable in the
eyes of another. And you haven't got any right to force the other into
giving up their position. And that's the problem: you are demanding that
people who have a more reasonable position (by default we do the right
thing, but people can override that) than you give up that position.
Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
They are also "demanded by the standard".
There are also "users who need these bits"
It is also "a basic courtesy towards the content generators"
Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions
Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions