Re: US Encryption Policy Change Now Official!
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Jules Bean wrote:
> 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.
It would depend upon whether those statements (the CYA ones) are part of
the license or just part of the copyrighted material. If it is just text
in the code, and not part of the license, then I would still consider the
license to be DFSG compliant.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: