Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-12-11T17:57:29Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 977 bytes --]

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.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]