Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:35:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:35:22 -0400 Received: from adsl-64-161-26-50.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net ([64.161.26.50]:61874 "EHLO linux700") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:35:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:35:36 -0700 From: Craig Dickson To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10 Message-ID: <20011022163536.B19715@crdic.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org There have been a lot of messages from a number of different people about this "censored changelogs" issue. Rather than reply to various points separately, I just want to sum up my views in one message. I simply don't believe that Alan Cox is at any risk of prosecution, and what's more, I don't believe that he believes it. He's just making a dramatic political statement that will have no effect on the law, will never even be noticed by American legislators, and serves only to annoy US-based Linux users. The words "Felten" and "Sklyarov" keep coming up in this discussion. The parallel between Alan Cox's situation and those cases are simply not valid. Felten conducted research on how to break DRM systems that were being considered for commercial use (the proposed SDMI standards). Sklyarov developed (or helped develop) a product that breaks Adobe's commercial DRM scheme for PDF files. Note that both Felten and Skyarov developed and publicized (or announced an intent to publicize, in Felten's case) ways of compromising commercial, third-party DRM systems, thus embarrassing and antagonizing the wealthy corporations that had invested time, money, and prestige in those DRM systems. This has no real similarity with Alan Cox's kernel work. All Alan is doing is fixing bugs in a system that he has every right to work on, and has a long history of contributing to. He is _not_ reverse-engineering someone else's copyright-protection scheme and publicizing how to circumvent it. And anyone who's ever actually _read_ his changelogs should know that they do not in any way amount to attack recipes. What's more, nobody sued or prosecuted Felten. The RIAA made threatening noises, but backed off the instant they were called on it, insisting that they had never had any intention of suing anybody, and they fully supported Felten's rights as an academic researcher, blah blah blah. (No, I don't really believe them, but the fact is, ultimately, they didn't sue.) Felten elected not to present his paper mostly because it gave him and the EFF a stronger case for his suit against the RIAA; he couldn't very well present the paper and then sue them for preventing him from doing so, and he obviously wants to be the Constitutional test case or he wouldn't have bothered suing them at all after they publicly backed down. Alan Cox claims to have legal advice, but has said nothing about who gave it to him, or what their qualifications are regarding US copyright law and the DMCA, or even exactly what their reasoning was; all we know is that the end result is that he's decided not to distribute complete changelogs. I find it hard to take this sort of nebulous claim of "legal advice" seriously when the advice seems nonsensical on its face. Craig - 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/