Re: [dvd-discuss] Inexplicable

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 17 Oct 2002 at 18:21, Glendon M. Gross wrote:

Date sent:      	Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:21:14 -0700
From:           	"Glendon M. Gross" <gross@xinetd.ath.cx>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Inexplicable
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> I just had a funny thought.  Wouldn't the terms of this patch violate 
> the GPL which requires the source to be freely available? 

Probably but I wouldn't waste time over it....the supporters of the DMCA 
advocate censorship which violates the FA. I doubt that a meer contractual 
matter would bother them or their high priced, no-brained legal talent.

> 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.

Capitalism at work....if you don't like ONE product go to a competing one...at 
least it works when there is no monopoly (M$) or dictatorial forces (Berman, 
DMCA, or what's the latest secure computing nonsense from congress)

> 
> I'm starting to think that the DMCA might be so full of contradictions 
> that it and the GNU GPL might be mutually exclusive. 

It is full of contradictions. The worst is section a and b. The LOC is making 
great pains to say "don't comment on b. we don't want comments on b. only a. 
what should we allow circumvention..never mind that nobody can do it..."

> Any opinions on 
> this?  It seems to be that RedHat is becoming progressively more like 
> Microsoft.
> 

RedHat isn't serious...they know it will get out and around...they are just 
making a statement...OTOH...I've gotten NO responses so maybe DMCA is working 
to chill speech...

> 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.

I can only with the USA were that smart..

> 
> Are their any provisions to allow for DVD movies which are licensed 
> under the GPL?  Or does the name DVD imply a proprietary licensing 
> structure?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 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:
> >>
> >>http://www.theregus.com/content/4/26656.html
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>| 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> --------------+
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>