Re: New licence for cryto++ code-base
Scripsit Sam TH <sam@uchicago.edu>
> I think it's exceedingly unreasonable to declare software as non-free
> since the license specifies compliance with the law at that time (this
> was written 5 years ago).
I think it is perfectly reasonable. I am not an American, and I would
not consider a piece of software free if its license says I have to
obey another country's stupid laws. Well, not only are they stupid,
they are passed by a legislative body I do not vote on.
> I think this clause is clearly meant to instruct people on the law
> relating to export from the US.
The important think is not what the author (more or less clearly)
meant, but what it actually says.
> And since Debian has no intention of exporting this from the US
If Debian accepts this, it will mean giving the software away
to non-Americans. That's what the licence clause says you can't.
The clause does not restricts its own applicability to cases
where the one who gives the software is an American.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that the U.S. government would care
to issue me with at license to give the software to my neighbour
(who, like, me, is not an American) even if I asked them nicely.
That essentially means that the license forbids me to distribute
the software AT ALL.
> I don't think this should matter.
It certainly should, and always has in the past.
--
Henning Makholm "Uh ... a picture of me with my hair pinned up
in a towel and standing in front of a grid without a
trace of makeup? *Are you out of your rock-happy mind?*"
Reply to: