I am not persuaded. WMF is not the creator of the content it has to follow the rules of the GNU FDL as a license. There might be good reasons to block live mirrors but that doesn't matter if blocking live mirrors is something lika a DRM. And the GNU FDL forbidds DRM.
Klaus Graf
Hoi, Who pays the bill for the live mirrors and is this what we want to spend our money on ?
Why is this a DRM ? They can have the dumps !! Thanks, GerardM
On 5/31/07, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
I am not persuaded. WMF is not the creator of the content it has to follow the rules of the GNU FDL as a license. There might be good reasons to block live mirrors but that doesn't matter if blocking live mirrors is something lika a DRM. And the GNU FDL forbidds DRM.
Klaus Graf
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 31/05/07, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
I am not persuaded. WMF is not the creator of the content it has to follow the rules of the GNU FDL as a license. There might be good reasons to block live mirrors but that doesn't matter if blocking live mirrors is something lika a DRM. And the GNU FDL forbidds DRM.
The content is made available live for reading conventionally. There is no requirement to make it available in an unconventional way, which is as true catering for live mirrors as it is for dealing with requests for clay tablets on demand.
DRMs are not relevant here; a DRM is an impediment built into and inseperable from the information you pass out, not simply a decision to choose who you do or do not pass it out to.
On 5/31/07, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
I am not persuaded. WMF is not the creator of the content it has to follow the rules of the GNU FDL as a license. There might be good reasons to block live mirrors but that doesn't matter if blocking live mirrors is something lika a DRM. And the GNU FDL forbidds DRM.
The rules about how copies are distributed only come into play when a copy is distributed. Blocking hotloaders and scrapers is preventing a copy from being distributed in the first place.
Anyone who receives GFDL-covered content from Wikimedia is perfectly capable of accessing Wikimedia websites. The GFDL does not prescribe that the receiver may use any method he wishes to get the GFDL content. There is no GFDL issue here.
On 5/31/07, Klaus Graf klausgraf@googlemail.com wrote:
I am not persuaded. WMF is not the creator of the content it has to follow the rules of the GNU FDL as a license. There might be good reasons to block live mirrors but that doesn't matter if blocking live mirrors is something lika a DRM. And the GNU FDL forbidds DRM.
Klaus Graf
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org