From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265113AbTLKShg (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:37:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265200AbTLKShg (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:37:36 -0500 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:18140 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265113AbTLKShc (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:37:32 -0500 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Robin Rosenberg" , "Larry McVoy" , "Kendall Bennett" Cc: Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:37:22 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: <200312111844.03839.roro.l@dewire.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > 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... > > -- robin This was already discussed to death. If EXPORT_GPL were a copyright enforcement mechanism, it could not add any restrictions not already present in the GPL because the GPL prohibits additional restrictions. So either EXPORT_GPL is not a copyright enforcement mechanism (in which case the DMCA doesn't prohibit removing or circumventing it), or it only enforces technically restrictions that are already in effect legally. So this would only matter to someone who said, "I'm going to violate the GPL, what might happen?" Interestingly, even if it is a copyright enforcement mechanism and even if it only enforces the GPL's actual terms, anyone who wants to could still remove it. The inability to remove a copyright enforcement mechanism would be an "additional restriction" and so it couldn't be imposed on a GPL'd work. (IANAL, and you never know how courts would rule of course.) DS