RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[David Schwartz]

> 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


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/