On Friday 25 March 2005 07:33 am, Michael Below wrote: > Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Michael Below <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I'm not a developer either, but from the legal point of view you're > >> right, I'd say. Their README.crypto says: > >> > >> Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, hardware, > >> software, technology or services provided under this license > >> agreement may not be exported, reexported, transferred or > >> downloaded to or within (or to a national resident of) > >> countries under U.S. economic embargo including the following > >> countries: > >> > >> Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. This list is > >> subject to change. > > I don't think so. Actually, both portions I quoted are reversed in the > README. So first, you are told that you may not violate law (and it's > true, one can disagree whether this is an additional requirement of > the license, as I would see it because of the commanding tone, or a > badly worded information). And then they are mentioning additional > requirements. These requirements go beyond the US export law: As they > are put, they also deny the right to export x.org source to North > Korea etc. to people not in the US. If I exported the source to such a > country, I wouldn't violate german law, but I would violate the > license contract with the x.org authors. > > Michael Below
The licensors cannot grant you the right to do something that is prohibited by law. Nor can they authorize an action which they themselves cannot commit. The economic embargoes mentioned are quite broad, and if the U.S. Gov't decided to stick its nose into the situation, I wouldn't be surprised if X.org would be criminally liable if others were exporting their code to embargoed nations if X.org knew about it. The language thus stands as a liability deferment mechanism... like the "no warranty is provided to the extent allowable by law." As for overshooting the mark... if only it were that simple. You the user and potential exporter may not be liable under German law. But like I said before, I'm willing to bet there is vicarious liability in this situation. An embargo without such provisions would result in hundreds of shell corporations that would sell goods to listed countries and then collapse without assets when sued for breaking the embargo. Vicarious liability ensures that those who actually benefit from breaking the embargo are punished. All that being said, the embargoes are stupid... but Debian can't just stick its head in the sand and pretend like its not a problem. Speaking of which... whatever happened to the none-US archives. Seems like that was setup to resolve this sort of problem. Sean Law School Lurker
