Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423456AbWBBKtv (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 05:49:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1423457AbWBBKtv (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 05:49:51 -0500 Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu ([128.2.10.82]:41705 "EHLO smtp.andrew.cmu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423456AbWBBKtu (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 05:49:50 -0500 Message-ID: <43E1E2F2.1090102@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 05:46:10 -0500 From: James Bruce User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051017) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?RW1pbGlvIEplc8O6cyBHYWxsZWdvIEFyaWFz?= CC: Linus Torvalds , Karim Yaghmour , Filip Brcic , Glauber de Oliveira Costa , Thomas Horsten , linux-kernel Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders References: <43DE57C4.5010707@opersys.com> <5d6222a80601301143q3b527effq526482837e04ee5a@mail.gmail.com> <200601302301.04582.brcha@users.sourceforge.net> <43E0E282.1000908@opersys.com> <43E1C55A.7090801@drzeus.cx> <87mzha85sc.fsf@babel.ls.fi.upm.es> In-Reply-To: <87mzha85sc.fsf@babel.ls.fi.upm.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2369 Lines: 49 Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias wrote: >... > 1.- Distribute a kernel with some DRM built-in under the GPL. > > 2.- Claim that such kernel is an effective technological measure to > protect copyright. You forgot: 2.5- Due to the DMCA, the code now has an additional restriction on top of what is already in its license, the GPL v2. The GPL v2 forbids additional restrictions, and thus the resulting work cannot be distributed. > 3.- You are no longer free to modify that kernel, (removing the DRM > module) or you can be sued under the DMCA, for circumventing an > effective technological measure. It doesn't matter in what > hardware are you going to run such kernel. The DMCA implicitly > imposes an additional restriction to the GPL, but as the > restriction is not imposed directly by the copyright owner, but by > the law, it's OK as far the GPL is concerned. If the DRM author(s) are the ones claiming the DRM is an "effective technological measure", then they are the ones imposing an additional restriction. Those authors are the ones who can be sued, not the end users of the kernel+DRM. If someone else makes the claim, it carries no weight at all, because they are not the author or copyright owner. Also, remember that the GPL is about DISTRIBUTION only. You are always free to modify whatever you want. So your #3 is just plain wrong, as you still can modify the kernel. What you can't do is distribute that modified version, although that's a meaningless since #2.5 shows you couldn't distribute the unmodified version anyway. The modification vs. distribution point cannot be emphasized enough, as far too many people miss this important distinction when thinking about the GPL. Nothing in GPL software becomes magically illegal at any point; The only thing that can be legal or not is distribution. I am free to mix Linux, Open Solaris, GCC, and BSD code with the advertising clause, and top it off with GNU FDL docs, and do so to my hearts' content. The only thing I *can't* do with that abomination is distribute it. - Jim Bruce - 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/