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"
