[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? 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.099 / U:24.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site