Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> > >> Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> wrote: >> >>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk> >>> > > >>>> Please quote the section of the license that states that. >>>> > > >>> # 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. >>> > > >> In this sense, "AGREES" is synonymous with "ACKNOWLEDGES". If you read >> it like that, are you happier? >> > > What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for > me to "acknowledge" that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so > - he must have _some_ purpose in requiring such an "acknowledgement", > which indicates that a laywerbomb must be present somewhere. I would > be wary of using the software, because it is completely opaque what > the catch is. > It's to cover UChicago's ass. They want to make sure if someone distributes their software in a way that violates US export laws they can point at that license and say "See! We warned them! It's not our fault" They don't want to get sued by someone claiming that it's their responsibility for not informing that person of the legal risk. > At least I know what opinions I have. If "Licensee agrees" does not > mean that I in fact agree, then I don't know how to tell whether I > have "acknowledged" the law in a proper manner that allows me to use > the license, or what it would mean for me to do so. > > Would you agree that there are bugs present in the Debian operating system? You may not like the fact (I know I don't), and you may not agree that they should be there, but I hope you can agree that they exist. HTH, Benjamin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature