Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:23:16 +0100
From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Brian McGroarty <brian@mcgroarty.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BK Licence: Protocols and Research
Message-ID: <20030722202316.GH3267@mail.jlokier.co.uk>
References: <20030717120505.GA22304@zion.nuigalway.ie> <20030717145802.GC24697@work.bitmover.com> <20030722165615.GA3267@mail.jlokier.co.uk> <20030722201517.GA25774@mcgroarty.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030722201517.GA25774@mcgroarty.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1141
Lines: 25

Brian McGroarty wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 05:56:15PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > If you managed to stay close then we'd put digital signatures
> > > into the protocol to prevent your clone from interoperating with BK.
> > 
> > If this hypothetical scenario were to occur, I believe that reverse
> > engineering specific parts of the software, for the specific purpose
> > of getting the signature key, in order to use it specifically for
> > interoperating with the software, would be allowed regardless of
> > license here in Europe, and perhaps in the USA too.
> 
> Well off topic here, but in the US at least, the DMCA makes this
> hands-off if these features are added under the auspices of security
> or server license protection.

Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind when I said prison was one of
the dangers of making interoperable software.

-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/