From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 7 22:58:20 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FD331065670 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 22:58:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glen.j.barber@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220158FC1A for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 22:58:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws2 with SMTP id 2so151446vws.13 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:58:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kys2G48Wlnuij9Tq2pPSglD4KDh0uwxD4QVlIn4gyNk=; b=LC85NMggV+vva3YZLXLQxsKEs6X46QKhY947N9P/1C2SfXh0uLCo/lfGeQuqOlTaYN EcFG1xwoONPho0K5i7AYKpIZ8P67xDP7JXpgarZ8fBiL8D/P0HM3BtK/2HH3IfhFyZd5 yp/wc1L+8GTTN94Oz31tdRlGQsgVHOGJr6tY4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Ysy15inweDwBC4xEHM9kQYGP/dyxrdNv8h59KLEhn1NJQZEePIfENWnnnrhfNmL1zy N+Y6Eh72Ps8LkU1ZApu26/YvBwhtJepUAxZBoNzt7WEkPQ6S2WGVc2Uag0dsNm1rJKdW gMJfdTRcqi3/p70+e69HQJ2EOhajqfKeDHIHw= Received: by 10.220.71.20 with SMTP id f20mr452638vcj.20.1286492298218; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:58:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from schism.local (c-71-230-240-241.hsd1.pa.comcast.net [71.230.240.241]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x26sm472306vbw.18.2010.10.07.15.58.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4CAE5086.6040805@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:58:14 -0400 From: Glen Barber User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Bonomi References: <201010072247.o97MlNUC023450@mail.r-bonomi.com> In-Reply-To: <201010072247.o97MlNUC023450@mail.r-bonomi.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:58:20 -0000 On 10/7/10 6:47 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote: >> To: FreeBSD >> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:46:34 -0700 >> Subject: Re: Like it or not, >> Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software >> in the core >> >> >> I understand that entirely. Which is why it would be reasonable (and >> downright ethical) to ensure that every FreeBSD integrator be made well >> aware of this restriction. >> >> It hadn't occurred to *me* for example to think that FreeBSD might be >> restricted. > > We are not responsible for _your_ lack of understanding OF THE LAW. > > But then, you've been there before on that, and learned the 'hard way' > didn't you. > > Pure and simple, _if_ there is software involved, there *MAY* be export- > control issues. > > *ANYONE* in the business of exporting software _should_ be aware of that > fact, and as a matter of basic 'due diligence' know about _their_ national > laws on the matter, and how/where to find out what kinds of software are > restricted, and on what basis. > > It is worth noting that since the original software author (Intel) put the > "it is possible an export license may be required under some circumstances" > notice on their software that anyone who takes said notice -off- had better > have (1) a -solid- professionally-rendered legal opinion that no such license > is required under _any_ circumstances, and (2) massive liability insuance > in case they are wrong. > > The party that removes the warning notice of a possible risk *IS* liable > to the party who 'relies' on such removal as evidence that no license is > needed. > > If a cautionary notice was _never_ present, that is one thing, and one cannot > draw conclusions from the omission. > > If a notice _was_ present, and "someone" removes it, that 'affirmtive acton' > is a _very_ different thing. > Can this thread go away now? -- Glen Barber