Re: US Encryption Policy Change Now Official!
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Bear Giles wrote:
>
> BTW, for the same reason I'm not entirely sure that many ham radio
> packages should be considered non-DFSG. If the sole purpose of a
> package is operation of a device which requires a gov't license
> to operate, is it non-DFSG for the license to restrict the use of
> the license to only those who can legally use the software? I'm
> sure the author honestly doesn't care one way or the other, but
> includes the language just to CYA if someone buys some used gear
> at a swap meet and doesn't realize that a ham station is not just
> an overpowered CB radio.
It's a moot point. But IMO, if the author uses the copyright license to
enforce this, it's no DFSG free.
If, instaed, the author says "This software is under the GPL" but "Respect
the local laws of your jurisdiction. In particular, in the United States
you are forbidden from doing X, Y and Z" then he's covered his back (IMO)
but hasn't actually made his copyright license non-free.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: