From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265209AbTLKSZw (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:25:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265210AbTLKSZw (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:25:52 -0500 Received: from mail-01.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.33]:26514 "HELO mail.iinet.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265209AbTLKSZu (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:25:50 -0500 Message-ID: <3FD8B487.3040504@cyberone.com.au> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:16:39 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030827 Debian/1.4-3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu CC: Robin Rosenberg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? References: <00af01c3bf41$2db12770$d43147ab@amer.cisco.com> <3FD7081D.31093.61FCFA36@localhost> <20031210221800.GM6896@work.bitmover.com> <200312111844.03839.roro.l@dewire.com> <200312111756.hBBHulKh013471@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <200312111756.hBBHulKh013471@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.