Re: [PATCH] Blacklist binary-only modules lying about their license

Marc Boucher
2004-04-30T18:46:30Z

On Apr 30, 2004, at 1:44 PM, Michael Poole wrote:

> Marc Boucher writes:
>
>> I am not threatening anyone, only reminding folks that making
>> unsubstantiated public allegations that unfairly damage a person or
>> company's reputation is wrong and generally illegal.
>>
>> Marc
>
> I do not think the allegations are unsubstantiated or unfair;

A number of allegations were clearly wrong. Some posters have even
admitted or even criticized these factually incorrect accusations.
Instead of wasting more time/energy arguing or litigating, we hope that
this debate will now end peacefully and have helped to clarify and
resolve problems.

> on the
> contrary, people have identified with specificity what is offensive
> and probably illegal. Might I remind you of 17 USC 1201(b)(1):

It is extremely ironic that the free software community who was so
strongly opposed to the DMCA and considering it so evil now invokes it
in such a far fetched manner (Alan Cox was probably cynical about this
but you don't seem to be). It is also far from clear whether tainting
and the MODULE_LICENSE() macro are a "technological measure that
effectively protects" anything.

Again, our workaround is purely cosmetic, its side-effect on tainting
totally unintentional, we are sorry that it has caused so much concern
and we will be fixing it in good faith (even if it is a broken
concept), while hoping that the underlying problems will be correctly
resolved in future kernels/modutils.

On Apr 30, 2004, at 2:01 PM, Timothy Miller wrote:
>
> Nope. The real objection was misleading people about the license of
> the module. That part was clearly wrong.

We did not mislead people. Our license terms are clear and openly
stated in many places.
You could perhaps argue that we "mislead" a string comparison to fix a
usability problem, but this kind of technique is very common today,
especially under Linux where numerous interfaces are simulated. Would
you pretend that things like Wine are wrong and misleading when making
windows software believe that it runs under the real thing?

Marc

>
> No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide,
> or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device,
> component, or part thereof, that -
>
> (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing
> protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively
> protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work
> or a portion thereof;
>
> (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other
> than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure
> that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this
> title in a work or a portion thereof; or
>
> (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that
> person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing
> protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively
> protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work
> or a portion thereof.
>
> Issuing the taint warning when a derivative work is created is a right
> of the copyright owner(s); you have explained the embedded \0 as a
> "mere" technical measure designed to circumvent the taint warning. In
> my reading, that qualifies it as a violation of the paragraph above.
>
> Part or all of 12 USC 1202 may also apply for similar reasons.
>
> The DMCA may be unpopular, but it is still law.
>
> Michael Poole (who is not a lawyer)
>