From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265174AbTLKRoK (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:44:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265176AbTLKRoJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:44:09 -0500 Received: from [212.28.208.94] ([212.28.208.94]:37636 "HELO dewire.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265174AbTLKRoH (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:44:07 -0500 From: Robin Rosenberg To: Larry McVoy , Kendall Bennett Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:44:03 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Cc: Linus Torvalds , "'Andre Hedrick'" , "'Arjan van de Ven'" , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <00af01c3bf41$2db12770$d43147ab@amer.cisco.com> <3FD7081D.31093.61FCFA36@localhost> <20031210221800.GM6896@work.bitmover.com> In-Reply-To: <20031210221800.GM6896@work.bitmover.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200312111844.03839.roro.l@dewire.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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