From: Seth David Schoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Some software distributors make you say "I am aware of the export laws" > and some make you say "I promise to abide by the export laws". There is a > _huge_ difference between the two policies; the former is doing you a > service by preventing you from getting in trouble by accident, while the > latter is adding new restrictions on your behavior.
Where was this argument when the license was being reviewed? As far as I can tell, we got to a point where everybody decided it was Open Source although one person had a complaint about its being tear-open. The important thing it does here is let ATT off from being an accomplice. I don't believe that ascertaining that someone is merely _aware_ of the law lets you off from being an accomplice. But I'm not terribly comfortable with this clause. > I don't think there was any BXA-restricted cryptography in Apple's release > of Darwin either. I'm sorry, I was not aware that Apple got in any sort of trouble about Darwin - and if so, it's still on the net under the APSL, so what has changed? > But now the author of the package, or a contributor, can sue Baz for > _copyright infringement_ for exporting the package illegally, because > this violates the license terms and so infringes copyright! You'd have to be convicted of breaking the export law first. This is not like a civil rights violation - no conviction, no reason to sue. Thanks Bruce