Messages in this thread | | | From | Robin Rosenberg <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? | Date | Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:44:03 +0100 |
| |
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |