From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 21 12:51:37 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 113A237B401 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A0E243FCB for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 12:51:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.12.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h5LJpQMJ032713; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:51:26 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee) Received: from localhost (narvi@localhost)h5LJpPo6032710; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:51:25 +0300 (EEST) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:51:25 +0300 (EEST) From: Narvi To: Bakul Shah In-Reply-To: <200306211847.h5LIlIPF092303@bitblocks.com> Message-ID: <20030621224903.P24605-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FYI: Plan9 open sourced X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 19:51:37 -0000 On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Bakul Shah wrote: > > > >I don't think section seven (export control) should appear in a truly free > > > >licence. > > > > > > Why not? It's just a specific instance of the general disclaimer of > > > liability found in many licenses, including the BSD and MIT licenses. > > > > Because without it, a random person outside the US receiving it would > > technicaly (ignoring cruise missle diplomacy) not be bound by US export > > regulations. By using code under this licence, it is no longer (as far as > > that and derived code is concerned) no longer the case. > > With or without clause 7, if you are in the US, you _are_ > bound by its laws including export control regulations. If > you are living outside the US, you are _NOT_ bound by US > laws. The plan 9 lawyers are simply making this explicit. > You need to re-read the licence. A licence can (and the plan 9 one does) explicitly require you to comply with the US export regulations. This may not be a valid clause in some jurisdictions, but the fact remains that that is what > If from US you shipped a FreeBSD CD with some prohibited bits > to North Korea you are in the same trouble regradless of what > the FreeBSD license says. Basically all free software (or > may be all software) originating in the US is in the same > boat. The way I heard it, shipping bits without any crypto > (so that cryto bits can be added later) can also run afoul of > the law. If true that is truly frightening:-( The irony is > that these laws hurt people in the US more than anyone else. > Thats largely the problem of the people inside the US - vote for people who can clean up the shop. > Nevertheless, if the license is the *only* reason you are not > using plan 9 and you want to influence the license it makes a > lot more sense to discuss it with the plan 9 people rather > than here. I do think plan 9 has a lot of very useful things > that can benefit *BSDs and think that the license is open > enough to start using them -- the only reason I brought this > up in the first place. >