Re: DFSG-freeness of the "CID Font Code Public Licence"
On Monday 05 June 2006 15:14, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said:
> > On Monday 05 June 2006 13:28, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, Jacobo Tarrio said:
> > > > El lunes, 5 de junio de 2006 a las 19:39:46 +1000, Andrew Donnellan
> > escribía:
> > > > > But it doesn't say that - it says applicable laws, if that includes
> > > > > US export laws then there's nothing you can do about it because it
> > > > > would apply to you in any case.
> > > >
> > > > It says applicable laws, including US export laws. That's:
> > > > applicable laws, and, in addition to them, US export laws. If I live
> > > > in the EU, US export laws are not applicable laws to me, but per the
> > > > license, I'd have to comply anyway.
> > >
> > > I think you're misparsing what includes means. Includes indicates a
> > > subset, rather than an addition. The list of numbers 1 .. 4 includes
> > > 2. It is a nonsense statement to say, the list 1 ..4, including 5.
> > It is there, no matter being additive or not:
> Of course. Maybe I wasn't clear, so I'll try to be more clear this time
> It says (broken down into more discreet grammtaical elements)
> You shall comply with all applicable laws (list 1 .. 4), including but
> not just element 2.
> If the the applicable laws in your country don't include element 2, this
> is a nonsense statement.
I do not parse the license text that way. In that case the law is applicable
because it is requested by the license and could be enforced in jurisdictions
when the above statement is not a nonsense, e.g. comply with US export and
import control laws for any reasons.
> If it said instead: "You must comply with all applicable laws of your
> country, including the Sharia", do you think it means that in countries
> that don't follow the Sharia, you would be forced to? Do you think a
> license can ever force you to follow laws that have no jurisdiction?
If the license says so (requires impossible or irrelevant demands) and I'm
unable or unwilling to comply with then I'm not allowed to use the product.
(btw, do not forget that Sharia is a law within some jurisdictions or better
said laws follow the Sharia). So I wont be surprised if the above example
given by you appears to be a reality somewhere.
> > Having that said, I believe US export and import control laws are not
> > even applicable in some jurisdictions, but could be enforced epspecially
> > if bipartite agreements exist between the involved jurisdictions.
> Yes, exactly. This means that the sentence boils down to roughly,
> 'you have to not break the law for your jurisdiction'. Well, that's
> hardly non-free.
It is free in some jurisdictions, but could be dangerous in others.
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB