From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 7 03:00:25 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 0B737106566C for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 03:00:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F54E8FC1A for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 03:00:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P3giU-0007bH-Mw for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 05:00:22 +0200 Received: from pool-173-79-85-36.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([173.79.85.36]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 05:00:22 +0200 Received: from nightrecon by pool-173-79-85-36.washdc.fios.verizon.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 05:00:22 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Michael Powell Followup-To: gmane.os.freebsd.questions Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 23:04:48 -0400 Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: <86fwwjyurd.fsf@red.stonehenge.com> <20101006215345.1a57c45c@gumby.homeunix.com> <86pqvnxbre.fsf@red.stonehenge.com> <20101006174309.407e4216@scorpio> <86d3rnxadh.fsf@red.stonehenge.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-173-79-85-36.washdc.fios.verizon.net 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 03:00:25 -0000 Rob Farmer wrote: > On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 14:46, Randal L. Schwartz > wrote: >> 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. And I hadn't seen any prominent disclaimers. Why rely on a >> very very buried notice? > > If your business model involves importing/exporting large collections > of material which you did not create, and further more do not outright > own, but are licensed to use under certain conditions, then you need > to have both a lawyer and an accountant review your setup for any > potential issues. There are entire college degrees in international > business and it is folly to think that all the ins and outs of a > particular scenario will be readily apparent. > > A competent review would turn up this license clause and would give > you advice on what to do about it. I don't think complaining that you > weren't aware of the license terms before exporting is valid. > Furthermore, this isn't really a license issue, but more of a issue of > federal law. If you are in the US, these laws regarding what may be > exported to where always apply, regardless of what the license says. > > Making the license more visible may be a good idea, but doesn't > materially change the situation any. > Please forgive my somewhat ignorant idea(s) on this subject, as I am definitely not a lawyer. I was under the impression that the most onerous of these export rules and restrictions applied to crypto technology. If this is so, what I don't quite grasp is what do crypto export restrictions have to do with acpi? Is acpi a copyrighted, patented, or trademark otherwise owned by some entity? Quite possibly so as it is in contrib. I just have no idea who might "own" it. Or how it would fall afoul of crypto export restrictions. Looking forward to enlightenment. :-) -Mike