Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Robin Rosenberg
2003-12-11T17:44:10Z

onsdagen den 10 december 2003 23.18 skrev Larry McVoy:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:48:45AM -0800, Kendall Bennett wrote:
[...]
> Not only that, I think the judge would have something to say about the
> fact that the modules interface is delibrately changed all the time
> with stated intent of breaking binary drivers. In fact, Linus pointed
> out his thoughts on what the judge would say:
>
> In fact, I will bet you that if the judge thinks that you tried to
> use technicalities ("your honour, I didn't actually run the 'ln'
> program, instead of wrote a shell script for the _user_ to run the
> 'ln' program for me"), that judge will just see that as admission
> of the fact that you _knew_ you were doing something bad.
>
> Why is it that the judge wouldn't see the delibrate changing of the
> interfaces, the EXPORT_GPL stuff, all of that as a way to delibrately
> force something that wouldn't otherwise be a derived work into a
> derived work category?

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...

-- robin