> 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"
