[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Inexplicable

I just had a funny thought.  Wouldn't the terms of this patch violate 
the GPL which requires the source to be freely available?  Or perhaps 
the need for security documentation is not included in the GPL guarantee 
for the freedom of the source.  Given this kind of restriction, I 
certainly would not buy RedHat... I would get one of the BSD's which
is guaranteed to have no such restrictions on the documentation, the 
patches, or the source code.

I'm starting to think that the DMCA might be so full of contradictions 
that it and the GNU GPL might be mutually exclusive.  Any opinions on 
this?  It seems to be that RedHat is becoming progressively more like 

In a day when the Chinese government has already decided to use GPL'd 
software, and when the German military has [to the best of my knowledge]
decided to prohibit the use of Microsoft operating systems, the GPL 
might be the straw that broke the DMCA's back.

Are their any provisions to allow for DVD movies which are licensed 
under the GPL?  Or does the name DVD imply a proprietary licensing 


Glendon Gross

microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> OK....if anybody out of the USA knows the answer email it to me....but noone 
> else. I don't want you to be accused of trafficking but a personal 
> communication is guarded by the DMCA isn't it? Or not?
> On 16 Oct 2002 at 8:04, D. C. Sessions wrote:
> Subject:        	[dvd-discuss] Inexplicable
> From:           	"D. C. Sessions" <dcs@lumbercartel.com>
> To:             	DVD-Discuss <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Date sent:      	16 Oct 2002 08:04:09 -0700
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>>Red Hat issues a kernel security patch, but due
>>to the DMCA can't explain why:
>>| The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. |
>>| Because the slow, feeble old codgers like me cheat.                |
>>+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+