Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Alan Cox]

> 1. A description of a security hole is constitutionally protected
> speech, and as such cannot be construed as violating the sections of the
> DMCA.  If such description fits the definition of "technology, product,
> service, device, component, or part thereof", then we're in big trouble,
> because source code itself is much closer to the definition of a
> "product" than a description of the source code.

I firmly believe that if justice prevails in the existing DMCA cases you
will be shown to be right. I've seen people compare the US to Iraq and
I don't buy that.

However until people stop shooting I'd prefer not to be a potential target.

Alan