On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 17:51 +0100, Colin Leroy wrote: > On 14 Dec 2004 at 08h12, Eric Gaumer wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Please stop digressing to irrelevant tangents. > > > > How is this irrelevant. Does deCSS not violate licensing issues? If it > > wasn't for guys putting this stuff out there, we would be screwed when > > it came to watching DVD's on Linux. So now who is wrong? I paid good > > money for a DVD and I can't watch it? > > The case has been closed (and 'Dvd Jon' > won) exactly for the reason you mention - except it's stated > "reverse-engineering for interoperability is allowed". It may have been > different if the trial had taken place in the USA where they have > software patents and the DMCA. >
Won in what sense? He is not going to jail won, or deCSS is legal won? I guess what I'm asking is, can we legally use deCSS? -- Eric Gaumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
