To the extent that it is "US specific" in its discrimination, I suppose it is actually *good* -- this means it is unrestricted for use by the government of, say, Canada or France. Indeed I do not think there is any restriction against their use.
FWIW, this license is for software which has not been actively developed by the original authors for some 4 years, their company has since been acquired, though others have continued work on the software. The new code is all GPL, LGPL and other non-troublesome licenses. Anyhow, I think it is likely to be difficult or impossible to renegotiate license terms with the original copyright holder. Exposing some personal bias here: I wouldn't mind it if the entire Debian distribution prohibited use by the U.S. Gov't (esp. Janet Reno & Co.) -- they don't really engage in any legitimate "field of endeavor" after all. :) Oh well -- should this go in non-free or main, then? Joseph Carter wrote: > Paragraph 9 is US specific which is bad, though whether or not it will > hurt anything I'm not immediately sure. It says "government", it should > say US government if it says anything. Also, I don't know about the > references of law they mention---if they apply whether the license says > they do or not, then it's okay. OTHERWISE, it's discriminating against > the US government (or taken at its word as we traditionally do) any > government. That would most definitely be discriminatory. > > > 9. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED RIGHTS. The SOFTWARE and documentation are > > provided with RESTRICTED RIGHTS. Use duplication, or disclosure by > > the Government is subject to restrictions as set forth in subparagraph > > (c)(1)(ii) of The Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software clause > > in DFARS 252.227-7013, or subparagraphs (c)(i) and (2) of the Commercial > > Computer Software -- Restricted Rights at 48 CFR 52.227-19, as applicable. > > Manufacturer is [Company name and address].
