Re: x.org non free?

[Michael Below <mbelow@antithese.de>]

Mickaël Leduque <mickael.leduque@laposte.net> writes:

> (I'm not related with debian, except being a debian user)

> I'm a bit worried by this file I found in x.org source : xc/README.crypto
>
> I'm sure this question has been answered hundreds of times and there's
> nothing worrying here, but the contents of this file seems to make all
> the files that are related to it non free.
>
> What did I miss?

I'm not a developer either, but from the legal point of view you're
right, I'd say. Their README.crypto as found in the google cache on

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:VhI_C_FqbYsJ:hanzubon.jp/mirrors/xorg/cvs/xc/README.crypto+x.org+xc/README.crypto&hl=de&client=firefox

says:

        Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, hardware,
        software, technology or services provided under this license
        agreement may not be exported, reexported, transferred or
        downloaded to or within (or to a national resident of)
        countries under U.S. economic embargo including the following
        countries:

        Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. This list is
        subject to change.

I.E. they are making US export restrictions part of their license --
at least in german law, it doesn't matter whether they called the file
LICENSE or README, they made it clear that they want to make this
binding. This seems to be a violation of Nr. 5 of the DFSG, saying:

        The license must not discriminate against any person or group
        of persons.

Also, the x.org README.crypto limits redistribution:

        You may not export or re-export this software or any copy or
        adaptation in violation of any applicable laws or regulations.

I'd say this conflicts Nr. 1 of the DFSG, saying:

        The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party
        from selling or giving away the software as a component of an
        aggregate software distribution containing programs from
        several different sources. The license may not require a
        royalty or other fee for such sale.

So maybe somebody should talk to the x.org team. I think it's well
possible that they simply wanted to make sure to comply with US law
and overshot the mark.

Ciao
  Michael