Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Nick Piggin
2003-12-11T18:25:52Z

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 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.