<quote who="Luis Villa" date="Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 08:09:50AM -0700"> > Generally speaking in the FOSS context we don't put it in the > licenses, we leave it up to the distributors. Since the distributors > have no obligation to distribute to everyone- just to distribute > source to whoever *they choose* to distribute binaries to- there is > considered to be no problem.
There are licenses that are otherwise free but include a statement that states or implies users must obey export regulations and obtain permission or violate the license. These are definitely problematic and (IMHO) probably non-free. > That said, I don't know what OSI has said about more explicit export > control clauses in licenses. The wise and aged wordsmiths there might > have found a way around it, don't know. The FSF has had conversations about this over the last few months. Discussion between parties and within the FSF is still ongoing. In any case, I suspect it's far too focused on the language of specific licenses to be of any more help to the general issue. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. --GNU Manifesto
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
