Re: is this free?
From: Seth David Schoen <email@example.com>
> Some software distributors make you say "I am aware of the export laws"
> and some make you say "I promise to abide by the export laws". There is a
> _huge_ difference between the two policies; the former is doing you a
> service by preventing you from getting in trouble by accident, while the
> latter is adding new restrictions on your behavior.
Where was this argument when the license was being reviewed? As far as I
can tell, we got to a point where everybody decided it was Open Source
although one person had a complaint about its being tear-open.
The important thing it does here is let ATT off from being an accomplice.
I don't believe that ascertaining that someone is merely _aware_ of the
law lets you off from being an accomplice. But I'm not terribly comfortable
with this clause.
> I don't think there was any BXA-restricted cryptography in Apple's release
> of Darwin either.
I'm sorry, I was not aware that Apple got in any sort of trouble about
Darwin - and if so, it's still on the net under the APSL, so what has
> But now the author of the package, or a contributor, can sue Baz for
> _copyright infringement_ for exporting the package illegally, because
> this violates the license terms and so infringes copyright!
You'd have to be convicted of breaking the export law first. This is not
like a civil rights violation - no conviction, no reason to sue.