Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Niches and new developers (especially xbox)

[Chris Bainbridge]

On Friday 11 June 2004 18:57, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 12:45, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > Actually the DMCA says:
> >
> >      `(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public,
> > provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service,
> > device, component, or part thereof, that--
> >
> >       `(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
> > circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to
> > a work protected under this title;
>
> We would be offering to the public the instructions on how to bypass the
> technological measure that controls access to the Xbox BIOS.  We would
> absolutely be breaking part A.

We are not "circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls 
access to a work". If we were, it would be possible to copy and play pirated 
games. How can a system that retains the existing security features of the 
xbox be considered to be circumventing them?

The instructions would be "primarily designed" to describe how to install 
linux. They would not be "primarily designed" to describe how to pirate 
games.

So from both points here, I do not believe that we would be infringing.

> >       `(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other
> > than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls
> > access to a work protected under this title; or
>
> Our documentation would be exactly this.  It would have no purpose other
> than to inform people on how to bypass Microsoft's access controls.

No, its purpose is to run linux, not bypass the access controls on commercial 
DVDs.

> >       `(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with
> > that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a
> > technological measure that effectively controls access to a work
> > protected under this title.
>
> Would we have the documentation on our servers?  Is that not marketing
> it?

It would be marketing it. It would not, however, be marketed for the purpose 
of circumventing the protection on commercial DVDs.

> I cannot give any justification because I have none.  I did not add the
> ebuild, nor do I maintain it.  I would probably vote for its removal
> from portage, rather than have the MPAA come after us, if someone were
> to ask.  However, that ebuild is not my responsibility.  I *am*
> responsible to the Release Engineering team, and think it is a good idea
> for our works to not be something that could possibly land us in any
> legal trouble.

Maybe we need a US/non-US package split. We can remove all of the potentially 
DMCA/patent infringing ebuilds from the US based servers. As Europeans do not 
(yet) have such restrictions as the DMCA and software patents this would make 
sense. 

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list