Re: Netscape (Mozilla) NSS and PSM
Frank Belew writes:
> NSS and PSM (crypto library, and ssl support in mozilla) are dual licensed
> under the MPL and GNU GPL.
>
> On the NSS/PSM home page at iPlanet, the following clause can be found
> -----
> PSM software contains encryption technology that is subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations and other U.S. law, and may not be exported or re-exported to ineligible countries or to persons or entities prohibited from receiving U.S. exports. Ineligible countries are currently Afghanistan (Taliban-controlled areas), Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Serbia (except Kosovo), Sudan, and Syria. Persons or entities prohibited from receiving U.S. exports include Denied Parties, entities on the Bureau of Export Administration Entity List, and Specially Designated Nationals. For more information on the U.S. Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"), 15 C.F.R. Parts 730-774, and the Bureau of Export Administration ("BXA"), please see the BXA home page.
>
> PSM software may also be subject to import and/or use regulations in other countries.
> -----
>
>
> is all of this DFSG free, and able to be put in main by a US citizen?
Oh boy, export clauses again!
If that software was separately licensed under a free license which doesn't
mention exports, then this clause may just be meant as a warning to
prospective exporters ("may not" legally, not that the copyright holder
intends to forbid it) and not as a license condition. In other words, perhaps
Netscape doesn't actually (independently) forbid you to export the software,
but they just want you to know that the BXA might forbid you (for instance,
because the idea of software export controls seems bizarre and surprising to
many people).
An analogy might be if someone indicated on a web site that "[local law
cite] forbids anyone to write a virus, so therefore you are not allowed to
write a virus based on this code" -- but separately licensed the code
under the MIT license, which would certainly allow you to make a derived
work which was a virus.
Then the interpretation could be that this was just a warning for your
information, so that you wouldn't accidentally write a virus (thinking it
was legal). But the original author is not necessarily trying to reserve
the right to sue you for copyright infringement if you do write a virus.
It seems that a recent way to handle the ambiguity has been to get someone
to add a note like
This notice is provided for your information and is not a condition
of license of this software; the licensee is responsible for
assuring compliance with applicable laws.
at the end.
A clause like that seem to make free software people happy and some
corporate lawyers nervous. But nonetheless some large organizations were
willing to stick a phrase like that in after their export notifications.
(I should try to dig up examples.) I guess the more popular version was
something a bit closer to
The export or dissemination of this software may be restricted
by law. For example, in the United States, at the time of release
of the software, [...]. Licensee bears sole responsibility for
assuring compliance with applicable local legislation.
The general point would be that a free software author can warn people
about the existence of discriminatory laws which might restrict the
dissemination or use of the software. But the author should not be able
to sue people or revoke their license just for violating those laws, or
for receiving the software as a result of somebody else's violation of
those laws.
--
Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Reply to: