From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 21 13:06:11 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 693D837B401 for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bitblocks.com (bitblocks.com [209.204.185.216]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4C0743FAF for ; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:06:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com) Received: from bitblocks.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bitblocks.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5LK6APF092718; Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:06:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com) Message-Id: <200306212006.h5LK6APF092718@bitblocks.com> To: Narvi In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:51:25 +0300." <20030621224903.P24605-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 13:06:10 -0700 From: Bakul Shah 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 20:06:11 -0000 > 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 I am not denying it explicitly requires you to comply with the US export regs. My point was simply that it _does not matter_! *Whether or not a license explicitly says so*, if you are in the US you are required to comply, if you are not in the US, you are not. IMHO it was meaningless to include this clause in the plan 9 license but "it does no harm". Rejecting the license as not open on the basis of this clause also does not make sense.