On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:59:45AM +0400, olive wrote: > Walter Landry wrote: > >olive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>By the way, there are licenses which in my opinion more clearly violates > >>the DFSGL and are nevertheless accepted. I think of a license of a file > >>in x.org which prohibit to export it to Cuba. This seems clearly be a > >>discrimination and moreover it fails the dissident test (even if in this > >>case the dissidant might be a U.S citizen; not a chinese one). For > >>someone (like me) living outside the U.S. this is even more flagrant > >>because to export goods to Cuba is perfectly legal from my country. > >Which license is this? I ran > > find /usr/share/doc/ -name copyright | xargs -n 100 grep -i cuba > Look at the file xc/README.crypto in the top directory of the source of > the xorg distribution. This has already been discussed in Debian legal > (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00477.html) and the > conclusion was (if I understood it well) that this was not a problem > since it is a U.S. law. No, this is a clarifying statement from an upstream developer indicating that it is not the intent of this README file to serve as part of the license and acknowledging that it should be worded more clearly. This is *not* a statement on behalf of debian-legal that it's ok for licenses to prohibit export to Cuba. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
