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

Re: [dvd-discuss] Inexplicable

On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 09:47  PM, microlenz@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 
> advocate censorship which violates the FA. I doubt that a meer 
> contractual
> matter would bother them or their high priced, no-brained legal talent.
The operative clause in the GPL would seem to be:

" 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all."

which might come into play if the DMCA prohibited the distribution of 
source code-- but not binaries-- a dvd player that could easily be 
modified to do dangerous things, but, in binary form, at least played 
lip service to copying restrictions. This clause might well come into 
play with Microsoft's Palladium scheme.

I had thought the GPL included a nondiscrimination clause. It doesn't, 
but such discrimination is the prerogative of the copyright holder on 
the "Program". In the case of the Linux kernel, I would have thought 
that such a copyright is held by Linus Torvalds-- though I could be 
wrong. Could omeone with access to
  inform us of the copyright holder?

I'm not running linux, and have no particular desire to download twenty 
odd megabytes down a 56k line.

As I understand, the whole circumvention device argument vis a vis 
linux code is that it allows local exploits-- which allows local user A 
to view (copy into video memory) local user B's file. Hence, exploiting 
this particular hole is circumventing the normal un*x file access 
controls (chown, chmod)...

The document explaining these changes is apparently separately licensed 
from the kernel. It's a lot of FUD, in my opinion...