Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750760AbWBBLO2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 06:14:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750759AbWBBLO2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 06:14:28 -0500 Received: from goofy.fi.upm.es ([138.100.8.23]:33038 "EHLO goofy.fi.upm.es") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750757AbWBBLO1 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2006 06:14:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:13:42 +0100 From: egallego@babel.ls.fi.upm.es (Emilio =?utf-8?Q?Jes=C3=BAs?= Gallego Arias) Subject: Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders In-reply-to: <43E1E2F2.1090102@andrew.cmu.edu> To: James Bruce Cc: Linus Torvalds , Karim Yaghmour , Filip Brcic , Glauber de Oliveira Costa , Thomas Horsten , linux-kernel Message-id: <87ek2m813t.fsf@babel.ls.fi.upm.es> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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> <43E1E2F2.1090102@andrew.cmu.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2042 Lines: 52 James Bruce writes: > 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. Ok, so to add DRM to GPLed software, the copyright holder has to state that the DMCA does not apply to such software? Or does the GPL state that? Quoting the GPL: 6.- [...] You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. [...] The point is that it is not the copyright holder who is imposing the restrictions, is the law. For example, the law may impose some export restrictions, would that void the GPL? >> 3.- You are no longer free to modify that kernel, (removing the DRM ^^^^^^ I meant modify and distribute, sorry. >> [...] > > If the DRM author(s) are the ones claiming the DRM is an "effective > technological measure", then they are the ones imposing an additional They are only a claiming, not restricting. The restriction would come from the law when a judge decides that the code in question is an "effective technological measure". > 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 Ok, I mean a user who tries to exercise all the rights stated in the GPL, including distribution of the modified code. > no weight at all, because they are not the author or copyright owner. Regards, Emilio - 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/