From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263591AbTD1NtQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:49:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263595AbTD1NtQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:49:16 -0400 Received: from tehunlose.com ([68.15.181.213]:33477 "EHLO cerebellum") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263591AbTD1NtP (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:49:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 07:01:28 -0700 From: Zack Gilburd To: Andre Hedrick Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Flame Linus to a crisp! Message-Id: <20030428070128.566ede0a.zack@tehunlose.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.11 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="=.CILGNw96Dv,a12" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=.CILGNw96Dv,a12 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 03:35:10 -0700 (PDT) Andre Hedrick wrote: > There is one fundamental problem, and nobody has addressed. > > Who will enforce the GPL over DRM violations? > Since it is a blanket over the entire kernel, and you have formally > (for the most part) have authorized DRM, thus one assumes you are the only > one who can pursue in a court of law. Unless I am missing something, I was hoping for more of a sparse DRM implementation; not a blanket. I was hoping to be able to `modprobe drm` for when I needed to use DRM and likewise `rmmod drm` for when I didn't want it. Maybe I am a little late in this disucssion, but that's just my hopes and whishes. -Zack Gilburd --=.CILGNw96Dv,a12 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+rTQ6p5pFZoJAq2wRAm9CAJ9U4LMywpMrk8S9vYkgmhlhVe1N0wCaA80O J8SR9ymgg+dBM4bXQ9yVr5I= =E3Fx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=.CILGNw96Dv,a12--