From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264246AbTLEQz2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:55:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264266AbTLEQz2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:55:28 -0500 Received: from node-d-1fcf.a2000.nl ([62.195.31.207]:21892 "EHLO laptop.fenrus.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264246AbTLEQzU (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:55:20 -0500 Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? From: Arjan van de Ven To: Shawn Willden Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ryan Anderson In-Reply-To: <200312050938.10607.shawn-lkml@willden.org> References: <20031205140304.GF17870@michonline.com> <200312050938.10607.shawn-lkml@willden.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1070643290.14996.5.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-7) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:54:50 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > So copies to disk and RAM that are "an essential step in the utilization of > the computer program" are non-infringing. probably true for the US, most definitely not true in europe... it's explicit in law here that copying from disk-to-ram and ram-to-cpu is distributing in the "need a license" sense...