Re: Linux 2.2.20pre10

[Craig Dickson]

Luigi Genoni wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Craig Dickson wrote:
> 
> > There have been a lot of messages from a number of different people
> > about this "censored changelogs" issue. Rather than reply to various
> > points separately, I just want to sum up my views in one message.
> >
> > I simply don't believe that Alan Cox is at any risk of prosecution, and
> > what's more, I don't believe that he believes it. He's just making a
> > dramatic political statement that will have no effect on the law, will
> > never even be noticed by American legislators, and serves only to annoy
> > US-based Linux users.
> your own opinion

If you read carefully, I said twice "I don't believe", which pretty
clearly indicates that I am expressing my own opinion. So I'm not at
all sure what you think you're contributing by repeating that fact.

> Ans so, if a company makes a vulnerable product, I am not free
> to publish the bug?
> 
> ahh, simply nonsense.

Yes, it is nonsense. Where did you come up with it? Nothing I wrote
suggested any such thing.

What I was pointing out was that the RIAA and Adobe at least had some
reason to be opposed to what Felten and Sklyarov were doing. It is
unfortunate that the DMCA gave them the appearance of legal backing for
their revoltingly unethical attempts to prevent public discussion of the
technical demerits of their technology, but the real point here is that
there was a plaintiff to initiate DMCA prosecution (in Sklyarov's case)
or to threaten Felten with a civil action. But who is going to do the
same to Alan Cox for fixing kernel bugs? Who could conceivably have a
cause for action?

I hope this clarifies my point for you.

Craig