[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GR proposal: GFDL with no Invariant Sections is free

Walter Landry wrote:
olive <olive.lin@versateladsl.be> wrote:

By the way, there are licenses which in my opinion more clearly violates the DFSGL and are nevertheless accepted. I think of a license of a file in x.org which prohibit to export it to Cuba. This seems clearly be a discrimination and moreover it fails the dissident test (even if in this case the dissidant might be a U.S citizen; not a chinese one). For someone (like me) living outside the U.S. this is even more flagrant because to export goods to Cuba is perfectly legal from my country.

Which license is this?  I ran

  find /usr/share/doc/ -name copyright | xargs -n 100 grep -i cuba

Look at the file xc/README.crypto in the top directory of the source of the xorg distribution. This has already been discussed in Debian legal (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00477.html) and the conclusion was (if I understood it well) that this was not a problem since it is a U.S. law. For someone not living in the U.S. like me this argument seems inconceivable (would you accept a license which prohibit to export it in the U.S. because the original developper live in a country which has laws that prohibit it?). Maybe the other unsaid argument is the fact that it is not possible for Debian to not include xorg.


Reply to: