Frank Belew writes: > NSS and PSM (crypto library, and ssl support in mozilla) are dual licensed > under the MPL and GNU GPL. > > On the NSS/PSM home page at iPlanet, the following clause can be found > ----- > PSM software contains encryption technology that is subject to the U.S. > Export Administration Regulations and other U.S. law, and may not be exported > or re-exported to ineligible countries or to persons or entities prohibited > from receiving U.S. exports. Ineligible countries are currently Afghanistan > (Taliban-controlled areas), Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Serbia > (except Kosovo), Sudan, and Syria. Persons or entities prohibited from > receiving U.S. exports include Denied Parties, entities on the Bureau of > Export Administration Entity List, and Specially Designated Nationals. For > more information on the U.S. Export Administration Regulations ("EAR"), 15 > C.F.R. Parts 730-774, and the Bureau of Export Administration ("BXA"), please > see the BXA home page. > > PSM software may also be subject to import and/or use regulations in other > countries. > ----- > > > is all of this DFSG free, and able to be put in main by a US citizen?
Oh boy, export clauses again! If that software was separately licensed under a free license which doesn't mention exports, then this clause may just be meant as a warning to prospective exporters ("may not" legally, not that the copyright holder intends to forbid it) and not as a license condition. In other words, perhaps Netscape doesn't actually (independently) forbid you to export the software, but they just want you to know that the BXA might forbid you (for instance, because the idea of software export controls seems bizarre and surprising to many people). An analogy might be if someone indicated on a web site that "[local law cite] forbids anyone to write a virus, so therefore you are not allowed to write a virus based on this code" -- but separately licensed the code under the MIT license, which would certainly allow you to make a derived work which was a virus. Then the interpretation could be that this was just a warning for your information, so that you wouldn't accidentally write a virus (thinking it was legal). But the original author is not necessarily trying to reserve the right to sue you for copyright infringement if you do write a virus. It seems that a recent way to handle the ambiguity has been to get someone to add a note like This notice is provided for your information and is not a condition of license of this software; the licensee is responsible for assuring compliance with applicable laws. at the end. A clause like that seem to make free software people happy and some corporate lawyers nervous. But nonetheless some large organizations were willing to stick a phrase like that in after their export notifications. (I should try to dig up examples.) I guess the more popular version was something a bit closer to The export or dissemination of this software may be restricted by law. For example, in the United States, at the time of release of the software, [...]. Licensee bears sole responsibility for assuring compliance with applicable local legislation. The general point would be that a free software author can warn people about the existence of discriminatory laws which might restrict the dissemination or use of the software. But the author should not be able to sue people or revoke their license just for violating those laws, or for receiving the software as a result of somebody else's violation of those laws. -- Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5