Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders

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

 



Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias wrote:

James Bruce <[email protected]> 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?
This isn't only about DRM protecting your distributed kernel.
Lets say you want to make a linux-driven home entertainment
device.  And you add DRM - not to protect the kernel you don't
really care about, but in order to use protected content in a
restricted fashion. Perhaps your business also sell DVDs.

Saying that the DRM doesn't apply to the kernel itself won't
help.  Users may, in this case, want to alter the DRM so it
doesn't restrict their use of Cds, DVDs etc.  That however
breaks with the DMCA - even if you allow unrestricted source
code modifications.  So you cannot legally distribute a kernel
with DRM - because DRM comes with a "no tampering" law
which don't work with the GPL.  Businesses can still add
DRM stuff in a proprietary userland app though.

The fact that DMCA law is a restriction imposed by
government rather than the distributor makes no difference.
The distributor implicitly imposes restrictions by linking in DRM sw, just
as the distributor would implicitly impose some restrictions by
linking a proprietary-licenced object into the kernel.

Helge Hafting




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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux