Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Friday 08 October 2010 01:12:55 Robert Bonomi wrote: he'll tell you: I need to review the copyright notices, licenses, and distribution restricions on _each_and_every_ item in that package. Go check _every_ file you intend to include, bring me a list showing 1) every file name 2) who holds the copyright to that file 3) what form of license it is issued under, and for each form of license a complete copy of that license. 4) any 'restricted use' notices you may find along the way Then _you_ actually perform the audit. Which is why it's so important not to customize the license text when creating new files! -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
El 07/10/2010 02:18 a.m., Rob Farmer escribió: On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 20:38, Gonzalo Nemmigne...@gmail.com wrote: As a lawyer, no matter how much I review your set up, it´s a _fact_ that a license place in a place like /usr/src/sys/contrib/dev/acpica/hardware/hwsleep.c, that is to say, lost amongs a gazillion files: _will_ scape any review. Furthermore, you can count on legal advise about the thing you tell you lawyer to review, but if you ignore _what_ you want to get reviewed: you can´t count on anyone knowing it for you. I would assume that such a review would involve extracting all the licenses in the source tree, eliminating the duplicates, and having those reviewed. I'm saying I don't find the oh I missed that one argument convincing, because if there is the possibility of missing a license, then you aren't looking closely enough in the first place. I would assume you already did that before walking into my office to ask me about the set of licenses up for a review ... otherwise, there´s no way to me to look close enough where I wasn´t asked to look ... If you go tell your Dr. you have a simple cof and a runy nose, he won´t ask you to go trhough a colonoscopy or a brain tomography ... and, _please_, _by_all_means_ don´t count on him finding anything on your colon or in your brain in that case. This license is not just in src/sys/contrib/dev/acpica/hardware/hwsleep.c - it is in all the files within the acpica contrib directory, plus the upstream vendor states that it applies to the entire tarball on their website. You should reasonably expect that each piece of software (ie directory) within contrib may be under a different license and needs to be reviewed. It´s not about what a lawyer or an accountant expects or doesn´t. It´s about what _you_, who know your way around your business (only you know your code, the licenses it contains and where) a lot better than he (who actually only knows his way around his business), ask him to review. If you didn´t: don´t count on him jumping at you answering a question that was never asked in the first place, regardless of whether the license is on every acpica file or any file on the scheduler or on the bluetooth, usb or tcp/ip stack or anywhere else ... Making the license more visible may be a good idea, but doesn't materially change the situation any. It does by making it visible and thus telling potential exporters/re-exporters watch out for this one. Ask your lawyer about it´s terms and conditions. What I meant by doesn't materially change the situation any is that everything exported from the US should be considered under export restrictions unless proven otherwise. Jung-uk Kim says: Historically FreeBSD never touched the license header. However, I am going to do it next time to avoid confusions. ( http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2010-October/222451.html ) I don't think this makes a bit of difference (it fact it would be somewhat misleading) since the export restrictions are a valid law and dropping clauses from the license doesn't change that - are you saying I'm wrong here? Im saying what I already said. Best Regards Gonzalo Nemmi ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Randal L. Schwartz mer...@stonehenge.com wrote: [SNIP] Or a third alternative... use the ACPI implementation from OpenBSD, which doesn't have such a restriction. Port it! I'll test it for you (on 9-CURRENT and, if possible, a backport to 8-STABLE). In your opinion, how long will it take, and how difficult will the process be? -Brandon ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 03:23, Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com wrote: Im saying what I already said. And yet, you haven't really addressed my core point. Consider the following scenario: I write a tutorial on how to use GCC (a program originally written in the US by a US citizen and stills recieves significant contributions from US citizens) to compile programs for targeting ICBM's. I burn my tutorial plus a copy of GCC to a CD and ship it to Supreme Leader Kim Jong-il's residence, then he sends me $50,000 cash in exchange. The GPL has no problems whatsoever with this (it never addresses exports, says there shall be no discrimination against certain fields of endeavor, and the added services and support sidestep any sales issues). Yet, do you really think this would be a-ok with customs? There are various laws that covered the situation, in addition to the license - for example, there are restrictions on transporting more than $9,999 worth of paper currency across the US border in a single transaction (even just to Canada). My point is that the US export restrictions apply to the Intel ACPI code, they apply to most of the GNU toolchain, they apply to work Yahoo has paid people to do, etc. FreeBSD, like it or not, is largely under the jurisdiction of US export law. You are saying that there should be a disclaimer telling people to watch out for this one. Ask your lawyer about it's terms and conditions. People shouldn't be watching out for a particular license, but rather the broader implications of distributing stuff internationally, which, due to cold-war era laws, can involve a significant prison sentence if done wrong. If you are interested in adding a disclaimer, consider the following one from Red Hat's legal department, which covers the *entire* distribution: By clicking on and downloading Fedora, you agree to comply with the following terms and conditions: Fedora software and technical information is subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations and other U.S. and foreign law, and may not be exported or re-exported to certain countries (currently Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria) or to persons or entities prohibited from receiving U.S. exports (including those (a) on the Bureau of Industry and Security Denied Parties List or Entity List, (b) on the Office of Foreign Assets Control list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, and (c) involved with missile technology or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons). You may not download Fedora software or technical information if you are located in one of these countries, or otherwise affected by these restrictions. You may not provide Fedora software or technical information to individuals or entities located in one of these countries or otherwise affected by these restrictions. You are also responsible for compliance with foreign law requirements applicable to the import and use of Fedora software and technical information. Perhaps there are loopholes (I export to Canada, then a Canadian exports to somewhere else) but this doesn't change the situation for people in the US, like the OP. You are talking about reviewing the licenses, but exporting is also matter of criminal law. If I consulted a lawyer about doing such an export, it is reasonable to expect that they would bring this up, rather than just summarize license terms on a one-off basis. -- Rob Farmer ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net wrote: On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 03:23, Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com wrote: Im saying what I already said. And yet, you haven't really addressed my core point. ... My point is ... If you have a point, then there´s no point in me addressing your point .. unless you are asking me for legal advice .. Should that be the case, just let me know; I charge by the hour .. no pro bono. ... People shouldn't be watching out for a particular license, but rather the broader implications of distributing stuff internationally Usually, the implications of distributing stuff internationally have a really strict realation with what is exactly what you want to export? ... which in this case, leads you straight into the reading of the terms of the licenses of the software subject to international distribution. ... By clicking on and downloading Fedora, you agree to comply with the following terms and conditions: Fedora software and technical information is subject to the U.S. ... Plase, get in touch with Fedora´a legal advisors. They´ll be able to ask every question and legal concern you may have about their operation. ... If I consulted a lawyer about doing such an export, it is reasonable to expect that they would bring this up, rather than just summarize license terms on a one-off basis. By all mean, feel free to get in touch with your lawyer and ask him everything you would like to know. Best Regards Gonzalo Nemmi ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net wrote: On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 03:23, Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com wrote: Im saying what I already said. And yet, you haven't really addressed my core point. ... My point is ... If you have a point, then there´s no point in me addressing your point .. unless you are asking me for legal advice .. Should that be the case, just let me know; I charge by the hour .. no pro bono. Funny how you say you have a point, but you can't validate it or even articulate it when challenged. Acting like you had a legal opinion on something earlier, then playing those games makes you a troll. Please drum up business elsewhere. -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Adam Vande More amvandem...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net wrote: On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 03:23, Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com wrote: Im saying what I already said. And yet, you haven't really addressed my core point. ... My point is ... If you have a point, then there´s no point in me addressing your point .. unless you are asking me for legal advice .. Should that be the case, just let me know; I charge by the hour .. no pro bono. Funny how you say you have a point, but you can't validate it or even articulate it when challenged. Acting like you had a legal opinion on something earlier, then playing those games makes you a troll. Please drum up business elsewhere. Actually my point was that Randal was right about Theo´s point .. whether I want or like to validate it according to your or Rob´s needs is not my problem .. it´s yours. I don´t _have_to_ validate a thing only because you want me too. I actually _meant_ not to validate them, and did that on pourpose. And BTW, I never drummed up any business .. I kept answering Rob´s questions until I wanted to. If he/you want some more, go find them some place else. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:19, Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com wrote: If you have a point, then there´s no point in me addressing your point .. unless you are asking me for legal advice .. Should that be the case, just let me know; I charge by the hour .. no pro bono. Seeing as your messages says things like El 07/10/2010 and Rob Farmer escribió and you seem unwilling to actually talk about US law, I'm curious to know where you attended law school and what states you are licensed to practice in, since you seem to be offering paid professional services. -- Rob Farmer ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:23:02 +0200 From: Erik Trulsson ertr1...@student.uu.se To: Randal L. Schwartz mer...@stonehenge.com Cc: RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 04:08:35PM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Erik == Erik Trulsson ertr1...@student.uu.se writes: Do you have a different opinion, and is it a legal opinion? To me it looks much more like a case of some corporate standard cover-your-ass boilerplate text that is used regardless of whether there is reason to believe any particular piece of software needs any special export approval. That is an *exactly* correct reading of the text in question. What requires explicit permission from the U.S. government (or other national authority , for those in a different locale) *changes* over time. Just because it doesn't require a license _now_ doesn't mean that it will =never= need one. And simplarly, if it -does- need a license now it may _not_ need one at some (unknown) point in the future. *ALL* that language is doing is saying that the original licensor (INTEL) has _not_ made any determination as to what, *IF*ANY*, export controls may apply, now or at some unspeciied point in the future, to that code. AND that anyone who _does_ intend export said software has to (a) make that determination for themselves, and (b) _comply_ with such legal requirements themselves to be in compliance with the license from Intel. As a matter of _law_, those exact restrictions apply to *EVERY* piece of _every_ O/S -- OpenBSD, NetBSD, Open Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, or 'whatever' -- that are accessed from a server that is located in the United States. It _doesn't_ matter where the code 'came from', you can import from anywhere, but certain things you _cannot_ 'export', even if you got it from 'somewhere outside the U.S.'-- a 'somewhere' that the person you're sending it to could go to themselves and get it. Intel is simply protecting _themselves_ against a =future= claim that _they_ (Intel) 'facilitated' the distrubution of 'export-controlled' software to the 'bad guys'. When in doubt you placard 'everything'. For stuf that you -give- away, there is nothing to be gained by spending the time/money to make the determinatin yourself -- It's not going to make you any additional profits if you do it, do why bother? applies. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On 10/07/2010 12:46 PM, Rob Farmer wrote: On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:19, Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com wrote: If you have a point, then there´s no point in me addressing your point .. unless you are asking me for legal advice .. Should that be the case, just let me know; I charge by the hour .. no pro bono. Seeing as your messages says things like El 07/10/2010 and Rob Farmer escribió and you seem unwilling to actually talk about US law, I'm curious to know where you attended law school and what states you are licensed to practice in, since you seem to be offering paid professional services. Argentina? [0] http://ar.linkedin.com/pub/gonzalo-nemmi/21/22b/267 -- Fuzzy love, -CyberLeo Technical Administrator CyberLeo.Net Webhosting http://www.CyberLeo.Net cyber...@cyberleo.net Furry Peace! - http://.fur.com/peace/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
To: FreeBSD freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:46:34 -0700 Subject: Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core I understand that entirely. Which is why it would be reasonable (and downright ethical) to ensure that every FreeBSD integrator be made well aware of this restriction. It hadn't occurred to *me* for example to think that FreeBSD might be restricted. We are not responsible for _your_ lack of understanding OF THE LAW. But then, you've been there before on that, and learned the 'hard way' didn't you. Pure and simple, _if_ there is software involved, there *MAY* be export- control issues. *ANYONE* in the business of exporting software _should_ be aware of that fact, and as a matter of basic 'due diligence' know about _their_ national laws on the matter, and how/where to find out what kinds of software are restricted, and on what basis. It is worth noting that since the original software author (Intel) put the it is possible an export license may be required under some circumstances notice on their software that anyone who takes said notice -off- had better have (1) a -solid- professionally-rendered legal opinion that no such license is required under _any_ circumstances, and (2) massive liability insuance in case they are wrong. The party that removes the warning notice of a possible risk *IS* liable to the party who 'relies' on such removal as evidence that no license is needed. If a cautionary notice was _never_ present, that is one thing, and one cannot draw conclusions from the omission. If a notice _was_ present, and someone removes it, that 'affirmtive acton' is a _very_ different thing. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On 10/7/10 6:47 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote: To: FreeBSD freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:46:34 -0700 Subject: Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core I understand that entirely. Which is why it would be reasonable (and downright ethical) to ensure that every FreeBSD integrator be made well aware of this restriction. It hadn't occurred to *me* for example to think that FreeBSD might be restricted. We are not responsible for _your_ lack of understanding OF THE LAW. But then, you've been there before on that, and learned the 'hard way' didn't you. Pure and simple, _if_ there is software involved, there *MAY* be export- control issues. *ANYONE* in the business of exporting software _should_ be aware of that fact, and as a matter of basic 'due diligence' know about _their_ national laws on the matter, and how/where to find out what kinds of software are restricted, and on what basis. It is worth noting that since the original software author (Intel) put the it is possible an export license may be required under some circumstances notice on their software that anyone who takes said notice -off- had better have (1) a -solid- professionally-rendered legal opinion that no such license is required under _any_ circumstances, and (2) massive liability insuance in case they are wrong. The party that removes the warning notice of a possible risk *IS* liable to the party who 'relies' on such removal as evidence that no license is needed. If a cautionary notice was _never_ present, that is one thing, and one cannot draw conclusions from the omission. If a notice _was_ present, and someone removes it, that 'affirmtive acton' is a _very_ different thing. Can this thread go away now? -- Glen Barber ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
Glen == Glen Barber glen.j.bar...@gmail.com writes: Glen Can this thread go away now? Only when the problem goes away. Is there a comprehensive list of restrictive sublicenses, or pointers to same, somewhere prominent at the top of the core distro? Or maybe some tool that would dynamically discover same, like maybe a convention that a license file is always called LICENSE or something? *That* would be helpful. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 mer...@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On 7/10/2010 8:23 PM, Gonzalo Nemmi wrote: I would assume you already did that before walking into my office to ask me about the set of licenses up for a review ... otherwise, there´s no way to me to look close enough where I wasn´t asked to look ... If you go tell your Dr. you have a simple cof and a runy nose, he won´t ask you to go trhough a colonoscopy or a brain tomography ... and, _please_, _by_all_means_ don´t count on him finding anything on your colon or in your brain in that case. True, but if you told your doctor to test that you did not have cancer and he neglected to give you a colonoscopy, then he'd be, well, negligent. But I am just being fecetious, I guess a lawyer may not have the technical knowledge to know *where* to get each license that may be used. -D ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 05:47:23PM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote: Pure and simple, _if_ there is software involved, there *MAY* be export- control issues. *ANYONE* in the business of exporting software _should_ be aware of that fact, and as a matter of basic 'due diligence' know about _their_ national laws on the matter, and how/where to find out what kinds of software are restricted, and on what basis. Anyone who stores software on GitHub, BitBucket, or SourceForge could conceivably be accuse of being in the software export business -- but I bet very few people who use those services ever think about that. Of course, practically speaking, the chances of ending up in US court simply for putting some simple home-brewed CMS on BitBucket are probably pretty slim, in my non-lawyer opinion. Still . . . not having a moment where one thinks about the possibility seems like a pretty clear indication that it is rare for a non-lawyer to consider *all* the possible ways to get in legal trouble for exporting software. I do not really think that implying someone is stupid for failing to consider all possibilities is productive, especially since if we all had to get legal help every time we started a GitHub project, we would have considerably fewer GitHub projects in the world. It is worth noting that since the original software author (Intel) put the it is possible an export license may be required under some circumstances notice on their software that anyone who takes said notice -off- had better have (1) a -solid- professionally-rendered legal opinion that no such license is required under _any_ circumstances, and (2) massive liability insuance in case they are wrong. They could also just ask Intel, I suppose. There must be *someone* there who has the job of answering questions like this. I am pretty sure that Intel's stable of lawyers isn't as big as IBM's, but it might be close to the size of the US DOJ. Even if Intel said Sure, go ahead, we don't care, I'd still be inclined to seek further advice more concerned with my own legal safety before removing any legal notices though -- aside from the tags on my matresses and pillows (for instance). -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgphjDhhH1dHJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Oct 7 18:28:10 2010 Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:29:46 +1000 From: Danny Carroll f...@dannysplace.net To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core On 7/10/2010 8:23 PM, Gonzalo Nemmi wrote: I would assume you already did that before walking into my office to ... If you go tell your Dr. you have a simple cof and a runy nose, he won´t ask you to go trhough a colonoscopy or a brain tomography ... and, _please_, _by_all_means_ don´t count on him finding anything on your colon or in your brain in that case. True, but if you told your doctor to test that you did not have cancer and he neglected to give you a colonoscopy, then he'd be, well, negligent. But I am just being fecetious, I guess a lawyer may not have the technical knowledge to know *where* to get each license that may be used. The lawyer doesn't need to know where to get each license. He, does know, however, that he needs -all- of them, -and- that they're not necessarily all in 'obvious' places. The conversation start with you asking your lawyer something along the lines of: I'm considering exporting _this_ bundle of sofware, what needs to be checked? he'll tell you: I need to review the copyright notices, licenses, and distribution restricions on _each_and_every_ item in that package. Go check _every_ file you intend to include, bring me a list showing 1) every file name 2) who holds the copyright to that file 3) what form of license it is issued under, and for each form of license a complete copy of that license. 4) any 'restricted use' notices you may find along the way Then _you_ actually perform the audit. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/178267 And yes, there it is, in /usr/src/sys/contrib/dev/acpica/hardware/hwsleep.c: * 4.3. Licensee shall not export, either directly or indirectly, any of this * software or system incorporating such software without first obtaining any * required license or other approval from the U. S. Department of Commerce or * any other agency or department of the United States Government. In the * event Licensee exports any such software from the United States or * re-exports any such software from a foreign destination, Licensee shall * ensure that the distribution and export/re-export of the software is in * compliance with all laws, regulations, orders, or other restrictions of the * U.S. Export Administration Regulations. Licensee agrees that neither it nor * any of its subsidiaries will export/re-export any technical data, process, * software, or service, directly or indirectly, to any country for which the * United States government or any agency thereof requires an export license, * other governmental approval, or letter of assurance, without first obtaining * such license, approval or letter. So, is such approval on file with the FreeBSD Foundation? -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 mer...@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:40:54 -0700 mer...@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/178267 ... So, is such approval on file with the FreeBSD Foundation? without first obtaining _any_ _required_ license or other approval ... It doesn't say approval is needed. It says that it's needed if it's required by the appropriate agencies. In other words, it's needed if it's needed. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
RW == RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com writes: RW It doesn't say approval is needed. It says that it's needed if it's RW required by the appropriate agencies. In other words, it's needed if RW it's needed. But doesn't this then shift the burden to every exporter, knowing or unknowing, willing or unwilling? Seems like an onerous burden. Is it well-documented? -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 mer...@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:16:37 -0700 Randal L. Schwartz mer...@stonehenge.com articulated: RW == RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com writes: RW It doesn't say approval is needed. It says that it's needed if RW it's required by the appropriate agencies. In other words, it's RW needed if it's needed. But doesn't this then shift the burden to every exporter, knowing or unknowing, willing or unwilling? Seems like an onerous burden. Is it well-documented? Are you familiar with the axiom: Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat Translated: ignorance of the law does not excuse or ignorance of the law excuses no one In other words, it is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content. There are exception; however, they are rare. -- Jerry ✌ freebsd.u...@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
Jerry == Jerry freebsd.u...@seibercom.net writes: But doesn't this then shift the burden to every exporter, knowing or unknowing, willing or unwilling? Seems like an onerous burden. Is it well-documented? Jerry Are you familiar with the axiom: Jerry Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat Jerry Translated: Jerry ignorance of the law does not excuse or ignorance of the law excuses Jerry no one In other words, it is a legal principle holding that a person who Jerry is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law Jerry merely because he or she was unaware of its content. Jerry There are exception; however, they are rare. I understand that entirely. Which is why it would be reasonable (and downright ethical) to ensure that every FreeBSD integrator be made well aware of this restriction. It hadn't occurred to *me* for example to think that FreeBSD might be restricted. And I hadn't seen any prominent disclaimers. Why rely on a very very buried notice? -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 mer...@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 02:16:37PM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: RW == RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com writes: RW It doesn't say approval is needed. It says that it's needed if it's RW required by the appropriate agencies. In other words, it's needed if RW it's needed. But doesn't this then shift the burden to every exporter, knowing or unknowing, willing or unwilling? Seems like an onerous burden. Is it well-documented? Since it essentially says that if you export it from the USA you will have to follow whatever laws and regulations covers such exports, it doesn't really add any burden since anybody doing such an export would be legally required to do so anyway. AFAICT the paragraph in question does not add any restrictions or burdens, it just points out potentially existing ones. -- Insert your favourite quote here. Erik Trulsson ertr1...@student.uu.se ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
Erik == Erik Trulsson ertr1...@student.uu.se writes: Erik Since it essentially says that if you export it from the USA you will Erik have to follow whatever laws and regulations covers such exports, it Erik doesn't really add any burden since anybody doing such an export would Erik be legally required to do so anyway. Erik AFAICT the paragraph in question does not add any restrictions or Erik burdens, it just points out potentially existing ones. Yes, you always have to obey the law when you export. But this clause seems to imply that the associated software *knowingly* triggers the export laws, probably in a bad way. Do you have a different opinion, and is it a legal opinion? Either this clause needs to be hoisted to the front page of the FreeBSD distro proper (Some software contained within may be subject to...) or it should be removed from this software entirely. Burying it is irresponsible. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 mer...@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
El 06/10/2010 08:08 p.m., Randal L. Schwartz escribió: Erik == Erik Trulssonertr1...@student.uu.se writes: Erik Since it essentially says that if you export it from the USA you will Erik have to follow whatever laws and regulations covers such exports, it Erik doesn't really add any burden since anybody doing such an export would Erik be legally required to do so anyway. Erik AFAICT the paragraph in question does not add any restrictions or Erik burdens, it just points out potentially existing ones. Yes, you always have to obey the law when you export. But this clause seems to imply that the associated software *knowingly* triggers the export laws, probably in a bad way. Do you have a different opinion, and is it a legal opinion? Either this clause needs to be hoisted to the front page of the FreeBSD distro proper (Some software contained within may be subject to...) or it should be removed from this software entirely. Burying it is irresponsible. +1 BTW: IAAL Best Regards Gonzalo Nemmi ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 14:46, Randal L. Schwartz mer...@stonehenge.com wrote: I understand that entirely. Which is why it would be reasonable (and downright ethical) to ensure that every FreeBSD integrator be made well aware of this restriction. It hadn't occurred to *me* for example to think that FreeBSD might be restricted. And I hadn't seen any prominent disclaimers. Why rely on a very very buried notice? If your business model involves importing/exporting large collections of material which you did not create, and further more do not outright own, but are licensed to use under certain conditions, then you need to have both a lawyer and an accountant review your setup for any potential issues. There are entire college degrees in international business and it is folly to think that all the ins and outs of a particular scenario will be readily apparent. A competent review would turn up this license clause and would give you advice on what to do about it. I don't think complaining that you weren't aware of the license terms before exporting is valid. Furthermore, this isn't really a license issue, but more of a issue of federal law. If you are in the US, these laws regarding what may be exported to where always apply, regardless of what the license says. Making the license more visible may be a good idea, but doesn't materially change the situation any. -- Rob Farmer ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
Rob == Rob Farmer rfar...@predatorlabs.net writes: Rob Making the license more visible may be a good idea, but doesn't Rob materially change the situation any. I agree, it doesn't change it materially. But for the casual integrator, making it very visible would help. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 mer...@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
Rob Farmer wrote: On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 14:46, Randal L. Schwartz mer...@stonehenge.com wrote: I understand that entirely. Which is why it would be reasonable (and downright ethical) to ensure that every FreeBSD integrator be made well aware of this restriction. It hadn't occurred to *me* for example to think that FreeBSD might be restricted. And I hadn't seen any prominent disclaimers. Why rely on a very very buried notice? If your business model involves importing/exporting large collections of material which you did not create, and further more do not outright own, but are licensed to use under certain conditions, then you need to have both a lawyer and an accountant review your setup for any potential issues. There are entire college degrees in international business and it is folly to think that all the ins and outs of a particular scenario will be readily apparent. A competent review would turn up this license clause and would give you advice on what to do about it. I don't think complaining that you weren't aware of the license terms before exporting is valid. Furthermore, this isn't really a license issue, but more of a issue of federal law. If you are in the US, these laws regarding what may be exported to where always apply, regardless of what the license says. Making the license more visible may be a good idea, but doesn't materially change the situation any. Please forgive my somewhat ignorant idea(s) on this subject, as I am definitely not a lawyer. I was under the impression that the most onerous of these export rules and restrictions applied to crypto technology. If this is so, what I don't quite grasp is what do crypto export restrictions have to do with acpi? Is acpi a copyrighted, patented, or trademark otherwise owned by some entity? Quite possibly so as it is in contrib. I just have no idea who might own it. Or how it would fall afoul of crypto export restrictions. Looking forward to enlightenment. :-) -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
Michael Powell wrote: [snip] export restrictions have to do with acpi? Is acpi a copyrighted, patented, or trademark otherwise owned by some entity? Quite possibly so as it is in contrib. I just have no idea who might own it. Or how it would fall afoul of crypto export restrictions. Looking forward to enlightenment. :-) Oh - I see now, it is owned by Intel. -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
Michael == Michael Powell nightre...@hotmail.com writes: Michael I was under the impression that the most onerous of these Michael export rules and restrictions applied to crypto technology. If Michael this is so, what I don't quite grasp is what do crypto export Michael restrictions have to do with acpi? Is acpi a copyrighted, Michael patented, or trademark otherwise owned by some entity? Quite Michael possibly so as it is in contrib. I just have no idea who might Michael own it. Or how it would fall afoul of crypto export Michael restrictions. Exactly my point. Either it's crypto, and the whole distro is tainted and should be marked as such UP FRONT, or it's not, and the paragraph should be removed, if possible. Or a third alternative... use the ACPI implementation from OpenBSD, which doesn't have such a restriction. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 mer...@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Wednesday 06 October 2010 03:40 pm, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/178267 And yes, there it is, in /usr/src/sys/contrib/dev/acpica/hardware/hwsleep.c: * 4.3. Licensee shall not export, either directly or indirectly, any of this * software or system incorporating such software without first obtaining any * required license or other approval from the U. S. Department of Commerce or * any other agency or department of the United States Government. In the * event Licensee exports any such software from the United States or * re-exports any such software from a foreign destination, Licensee shall * ensure that the distribution and export/re-export of the software is in * compliance with all laws, regulations, orders, or other restrictions of the * U.S. Export Administration Regulations. Licensee agrees that neither it nor * any of its subsidiaries will export/re-export any technical data, process, * software, or service, directly or indirectly, to any country for which the * United States government or any agency thereof requires an export license, * other governmental approval, or letter of assurance, without first obtaining * such license, approval or letter. So, is such approval on file with the FreeBSD Foundation? Please stop the FUD. ACPICA is actually triple-licensed, i.e., generic Intel software license, (three-clause) BSD-like license, and GPLv2. For example, please see the same file on Linux: http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/drivers/acpi/acpica/hwsleep.c?v=linux-2.6 When a new ACPICA release is merged to Linux tree, it is pre-processed with acpisrc (which is also included in ACPICA release tarball) and all C source files are converted to Linux style. Actually this tool replaces the generic Intel license with the actual BSD/GPLv2 dual license header at the same time: http://git.moblin.org/cgit.cgi/acpica/tree/source/tools/acpisrc The following file contains source conversion table for Linux: http://git.moblin.org/cgit.cgi/acpica/tree/source/tools/acpisrc/astable.c#n158 Historically FreeBSD never touched the license header. However, I am going to do it next time to avoid confusions. Jung-uk Kim ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
Jung-uk == Jung-uk Kim j...@freebsd.org writes: Jung-uk Please stop the FUD. ACPICA is actually triple-licensed, i.e., Jung-uk generic Intel software license, (three-clause) BSD-like license, and Jung-uk GPLv2. [...] Jung-uk Historically FreeBSD never touched the license header. However, I am Jung-uk going to do it next time to avoid confusions. Then. Please. Do. I would have never brought this up (nor would the OpenBSD list before me) if the right license was here. Geez. What a wasted amount of effort. If anything to be learned from here, it's use the right boilerplate when you include something into the distro. Otherwise, smart people will react to license notices because yes indeed, THESE MATTER. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 mer...@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 20:04, Michael Powell nightre...@hotmail.com wrote: I was under the impression that the most onerous of these export rules and restrictions applied to crypto technology. If this is so, what I don't quite grasp is what do crypto export restrictions have to do with acpi? Is acpi a copyrighted, patented, or trademark otherwise owned by some entity? Quite possibly so as it is in contrib. I just have no idea who might own it. Or how it would fall afoul of crypto export restrictions. Looking forward to enlightenment. :-) I'm not a lawyer either, so take all this with a grain of salt. Basically, there are two reasons the US will block an export, which you can read about at: http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm 1) The export is considered dangerous for one reason or another, and needs to be licensed so the government can keep track of who is getting it and why they want it. Examples include military equipment, nuclear equipment, controlled substances, firearms, etc. Crypto is defined as a munition and is restricted for this reason. There are a lot of opinions about whether this is right, but it has held up in court. 2) The destination is designated as supporting terrorist activities or is embargoed for political reasons (socialist/totalitarian government - Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria). Most of the people in these countries don't have access to a computer and the rights to install whatever they want on it, so this is targeted at government officials. As such, you are correct that for the vast majority of cases, the ACPI code shouldn't have problems or need a license. The biggest legal risk I can see is if ftp.freebsd.org and such allow people in the embargoed countries to download code - I've seen a brief reference saying Sourceforge was forced to IP ban these. -- Rob Farmer ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
El 06/10/2010 11:18 p.m., Rob Farmer escribió: On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 14:46, Randal L. Schwartzmer...@stonehenge.com wrote: I understand that entirely. Which is why it would be reasonable (and downright ethical) to ensure that every FreeBSD integrator be made well aware of this restriction. It hadn't occurred to *me* for example to think that FreeBSD might be restricted. And I hadn't seen any prominent disclaimers. Why rely on a very very buried notice? If your business model involves importing/exporting large collections of material which you did not create, and further more do not outright own, but are licensed to use under certain conditions, then you need to have both a lawyer and an accountant review your setup for any potential issues. There are entire college degrees in international As a lawyer, no matter how much I review your set up, it´s a _fact_ that a license place in a place like /usr/src/sys/contrib/dev/acpica/hardware/hwsleep.c, that is to say, lost amongs a gazillion files: _will_ scape any review. Furthermore, you can count on legal advise about the thing you tell you lawyer to review, but if you ignore _what_ you want to get reviewed: you can´t count on anyone knowing it for you. business and it is folly to think that all the ins and outs of a particular scenario will be readily apparent. A competent review would turn up this license clause and would give you advice on what to do about it. I don't think complaining that you weren't aware of the license terms before exporting is valid. No ... and you are dead wrong about that .. a competent review will only answer the questions asked ... if you ignore the existence of such license and it´s terms, then there´s no way you would ask for advice about it, and _that_ I think is the point Randal is trying to make. Furthermore, this isn't really a license issue, but more of a issue of federal law. If you are in the US, these laws regarding what may be exported to where always apply, regardless of what the license says. Making the license more visible may be a good idea, but doesn't materially change the situation any. It does by making it visible and thus telling potential exporters/re-exporters watch out for this one. Ask your lawyer about it´s terms and conditions. Best Regards Gonzalo Nemmi ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
El 07/10/2010 12:11 a.m., Randal L. Schwartz escribió: Michael == Michael Powellnightre...@hotmail.com writes: Michael I was under the impression that the most onerous of these Michael export rules and restrictions applied to crypto technology. If Michael this is so, what I don't quite grasp is what do crypto export Michael restrictions have to do with acpi? Is acpi a copyrighted, Michael patented, or trademark otherwise owned by some entity? Quite Michael possibly so as it is in contrib. I just have no idea who might Michael own it. Or how it would fall afoul of crypto export Michael restrictions. Exactly my point. Either it's crypto, and the whole distro is tainted and should be marked as such UP FRONT, or it's not, and the paragraph should be removed, if possible. Or a third alternative... use the ACPI implementation from OpenBSD, which doesn't have such a restriction. You just read my mind ... I was about to point out the same thing .. which I think was what inspired Theo to title his mail FreeBSD isn't Free ... I took it as he was making fun about the fact that they have their own acpi implementation whereas, by following acpica, FreeBSD turned out being subject to intel´s acpica copyright notice and terms. Boiling it down, Theo´s mail was nothing but a MDIBTY ... and furthermore: we are not tiered by legal restrictions ... and just as you said: Like it or not, Theo has a point... although from where I´m standing, he has two ... Best Regards Gonzalo Nemmi ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 20:38, Gonzalo Nemmi gne...@gmail.com wrote: As a lawyer, no matter how much I review your set up, it´s a _fact_ that a license place in a place like /usr/src/sys/contrib/dev/acpica/hardware/hwsleep.c, that is to say, lost amongs a gazillion files: _will_ scape any review. Furthermore, you can count on legal advise about the thing you tell you lawyer to review, but if you ignore _what_ you want to get reviewed: you can´t count on anyone knowing it for you. I would assume that such a review would involve extracting all the licenses in the source tree, eliminating the duplicates, and having those reviewed. I'm saying I don't find the oh I missed that one argument convincing, because if there is the possibility of missing a license, then you aren't looking closely enough in the first place. This license is not just in src/sys/contrib/dev/acpica/hardware/hwsleep.c - it is in all the files within the acpica contrib directory, plus the upstream vendor states that it applies to the entire tarball on their website. You should reasonably expect that each piece of software (ie directory) within contrib may be under a different license and needs to be reviewed. Making the license more visible may be a good idea, but doesn't materially change the situation any. It does by making it visible and thus telling potential exporters/re-exporters watch out for this one. Ask your lawyer about it´s terms and conditions. What I meant by doesn't materially change the situation any is that everything exported from the US should be considered under export restrictions unless proven otherwise. Jung-uk Kim says: Historically FreeBSD never touched the license header. However, I am going to do it next time to avoid confusions. ( http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2010-October/222451.html ) I don't think this makes a bit of difference (it fact it would be somewhat misleading) since the export restrictions are a valid law and dropping clauses from the license doesn't change that - are you saying I'm wrong here? -- Rob Farmer ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 04:08:35PM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Erik == Erik Trulsson ertr1...@student.uu.se writes: Erik Since it essentially says that if you export it from the USA you will Erik have to follow whatever laws and regulations covers such exports, it Erik doesn't really add any burden since anybody doing such an export would Erik be legally required to do so anyway. Erik AFAICT the paragraph in question does not add any restrictions or Erik burdens, it just points out potentially existing ones. Yes, you always have to obey the law when you export. But this clause seems to imply that the associated software *knowingly* triggers the export laws, probably in a bad way. Do you have a different opinion, and is it a legal opinion? To me it looks much more like a case of some corporate standard cover-your-ass boilerplate text that is used regardless of whether there is reason to believe any particular piece of software needs any special export approval. -- Insert your favourite quote here. Erik Trulsson ertr1...@student.uu.se ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
