Re: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders

[egallego@babel.ls.fi.upm.es (Emilio Jesús Gallego Arias)]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

> Besides, the people who inserted the DRM code explicitly gave you 
> permission to modify it, so the whole point is moot. There's no 
> "circumvention".

Yes, it is mostly clear, and indeed GPL3 seems a little bit over
engineered, but that doesn't mean that GPL2 could not have any
loopholes:

1. Release a kernel with builtin DRM for video. (For example HDCP [1])
   Such DRM implementation is released under the GPL2 by copyright
   holder A.

2. Distribute a modified kernel without DRM. Copyright holder A gave
   you permission to do so, by the GPL2, everything is OK.

3. People can backup videos from copyright holder B using the modified
   kernel.

4. Copyright holder B can sue you under the DMCA, for circumventing an
   effective technological measure. It doesn't matter whatever license 
   copyright holder A gave you.

Regards,

Emilio

Footnotes: 
[1]  High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection. Currently you would
never get a license for a GPL implementation, but it's used as an
hypothetical example.

-
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/