Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Nick Piggin]

Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:

> 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".

You know, "effectively" has two (that I know of) meanings.

I would be surprised if a case for prosecution could be won based on
the argument that rot-13 "works properly". Not because I know anything
about law, maybe naive though.


-
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/