[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
onsdagen den 10 december 2003 23.18 skrev Larry McVoy:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:48:45AM -0800, Kendall Bennett wrote:
> Not only that, I think the judge would have something to say about the
> fact that the modules interface is delibrately changed all the time
> with stated intent of breaking binary drivers. In fact, Linus pointed
> out his thoughts on what the judge would say:
> In fact, I will bet you that if the judge thinks that you tried to
> use technicalities ("your honour, I didn't actually run the 'ln'
> program, instead of wrote a shell script for the _user_ to run the
> 'ln' program for me"), that judge will just see that as admission
> of the fact that you _knew_ you were doing something bad.
> Why is it that the judge wouldn't see the delibrate changing of the
> interfaces, the EXPORT_GPL stuff, all of that as a way to delibrately
> force something that wouldn't otherwise be a derived work into a
> derived work category?

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

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.116 / U:5.488 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site