[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?
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".

Of course, IANAL, just a sysadmin who can read. If the definition of "effective"
is likely to matter to you, get legal advice from a qualified expert.

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.161 / U:0.860 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site