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.
Olive