If you can't do html/css or xml/docbook, then you are an incompetent technical writer.
Because Tenenbaum's lawyer *royally* screwed up the appeal and failed to cite the most salient case law.
Thankfully, the FSF stepped in to fill in the gaps that were missed.
A computer is a general purpose machine, completely customizable by whoever has physical access to it. GPO is a stupid, ugly, misguided hack that can never be implemented in a way that guarantees what it claims to do (much like DRM) because of this.
There is absolutely no reason for any linux developer to waste even a moments thought on this deranged requirement.
You dont like it? Don't deploy *computers*. Deploy the equivalent of a thin terminal or diskless web client.
I understand that corporations want this as a requirement. Its inherently impossible to get right, just like GPO is.
If, on the other hand, you only care to inconvenience your more clueless end users, no problem.
Please cite case law where the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was used to prosecute a deep linker in a case not involving fraud.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act does not cover publicly accessible URLs. It never has. Period.
And even if it did, like most amateur, wannabe, condescendingly annoying, psuedo legal eagles, you are confusing "rights" with the law. There are rights that we have that the legistlature and judicial system consistently and repeatedly ignore. To make matters worse, they do it because of ignorant, shortsighted, luddite fools just like you. You disgust me. There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with deeplinking a to a publically available URL.
Don't pretend for a minute that you know more about what is right and wrong than anybody here, let alone assume we are as completely ignorant of the law as you are.
>You have the absolute right to point to any resource on my server you want?
What kind of units is "minutes per 8 gigabyte"?
A physicist is an atom's way of knowing about atoms. -- George Wald