Re: BCFG Public License
On Sunday 30 July 2006 02:07, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, George Danchev said:
> > On Sunday 30 July 2006 00:01, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > --cut--
> > > Lets refer back to the license for a little clarity, perhaps:
> > >
> > > 7. LICENSEE AGREES THAT THE EXPORT OF GOODS AND/OR TECHNICAL DATA FROM
> > > THE UNITED STATES MAY REQUIRE SOME FORM OF EXPORT CONTROL LICENSE FROM
> > > THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THAT FAILURE TO OBTAIN SUCH EXPORT CONTROL
> > > LICENSE MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER U.S. LAWS.
> > >
> > > Can you tell me which part of this clause you think asks you to agree
> > > with the law? Can you tell me which part of this clause you think is
> > > stronger than a 'may' statement?
> > >
> > > I am at a loss here, frankly. I think mjg59 and myself have done a
> > > reasonably good job explaining a sentence in our native tongue, but I
> > > see that we are still failing to communicate. If you don't see what
> > > we're saying now, can you be more explicit about what phraseology you
> > > are seeing that supports your interpretation? It would be helpful in
> > > trying to explain it.
> > Ok, the above `MAY REQUIRE' implies a possibility of eventual requirement
> > to bla bla bla ... What happens when that possibility becomes true and
> > one does not agree with that law and has never accepted it before.
> Ah, I think I see the source of the confusion.
> The authors of the license are not asking you to agree with the idea of
> export licensing. They are asking you to agree to the following
> As things currently stand in the us, there are some things subject to
> export licensing. If you export $thing, you can either first get a
> license, or you may get in trouble with the government.
> The 'require' comes from the US governement, not the authors of the
> license. I think we can both agree that the author's assessment matches
> current reality, so it doesn't seem worth debating that.
> Finally, failure to get the license may (only may, not will, must, or
> even 'really should') get you in trouble under US laws, and in no way
> affects your status as licensee.
> Does that clear things up?
Yes, thanks for the nice explanation. I remember we have discussed that in the
past , but we ended up to .
Now, let's see if I understand and interpret that correctly: Licensee even
might be kept liable under the above law despite his not accepting the same
law (some jurisdiction respect others jurisdiction laws, by means of various
bilateral agreements, and other complicated and boring documents, we are
hardly aware of).
So, the clause 7. of the BCFG license is only meant to warn the licensees to
obey the laws (I believe that they could be kept liable even without that
clause being added to the BCFG), and covers licensor's ass (as said in
another mail). If so, there is nothing we can do, no matter what law we
accept/agree with or we do not. Hm, then I tend to agree that it is hardly
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