Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750964AbWA0RvQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:51:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751030AbWA0RvQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:51:16 -0500 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([128.173.14.107]:62917 "EHLO turing-police.cc.vt.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750964AbWA0RvP (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:51:15 -0500 Message-Id: <200601271751.k0RHp4AA021082@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.1-RC3 To: Bernd Petrovitsch Cc: Ian Kester-Haney , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:54:07 +0100." <1138355647.12605.21.camel@tara.firmix.at> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <43D65211.20006@wolfmountaingroup.com> <441e43c90601241721o8b4a9e5rd3a237f70aa46dbb@mail.gmail.com> <1138182144.4800.12.camel@tara.firmix.at> <200601270310.k0R3AIrf014656@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1138355647.12605.21.camel@tara.firmix.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1138384264_3087P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:51:04 -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1469 Lines: 39 --==_Exmh_1138384264_3087P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:54:07 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said: > On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 22:10 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) says: > > > > (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition conta ined > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Actually there is similar wording here (but of course in German) used > for the similar purpose. The problem with this kind of law is IMHO: > -) "effectively controls access": If I (or someone else) can circumvent > it, it is obviously not "effective". As Skylarov found out when he got into a pissing match with Adobe, ROT-13 qualifies as an "effective access control" as far as the law is concerned. --==_Exmh_1138384264_3087P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFD2l2IcC3lWbTT17ARAkqtAJ9TiDNnJCWef4b6Xede+ihWSUoDrQCfYCAU wK2+D0ixdCUkGOyorxSWKDU= =tch9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1138384264_3087P-- - 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/