From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265213AbTLKR53 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:57:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265214AbTLKR53 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:57:29 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([128.173.14.107]:41859 "EHLO turing-police.cc.vt.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265213AbTLKR4v (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:56:51 -0500 Message-Id: <200312111756.hBBHulKh013471@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev To: Robin Rosenberg Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:44:03 +0100." <200312111844.03839.roro.l@dewire.com> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <00af01c3bf41$2db12770$d43147ab@amer.cisco.com> <3FD7081D.31093.61FCFA36@localhost> <20031210221800.GM6896@work.bitmover.com> <200312111844.03839.roro.l@dewire.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1540854285P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:56:47 -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1540854285P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:44:03 +0100, Robin Rosenberg said: > If EXPORT_GPL is changed as a means of protecting the copyright, i..e. provide > source code access. then doesn't this "mechanism" fall under the infamous DMCA, > i.e. you're not allowed to even think about circumventing it... 17 USC 1201 (a)(1)(A) says: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter." OK, so Adobe managed to make the case that rot-13 was an "effective control". Given that the GPL specifically allows you to change the source and thus bypass the EXPORT_GPL, I doubt you can make the case for "effective". Of course, IANAL, just a sysadmin who can read. If the definition of "effective" is likely to matter to you, get legal advice from a qualified expert. --==_Exmh_1540854285P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQE/2K/fcC3lWbTT17ARAutjAKDhjp4F/+JR5l7eFeoJwrCcgkEq8ACgnCwj y9TNgoOcW1Fcju0BQ/2QQ/8= =lYCf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1540854285P--