On 10/7/10 6:47 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
>> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:46:34 -0700
>> Subject: Re: Like it or not,
>>      Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software
>>      in the core
>> 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. 
> We are not responsible for _your_ lack of understanding OF THE LAW.
> But then, you've been there before on that, and learned the 'hard way'
> didn't you.
> Pure and simple, _if_ there is software involved, there *MAY* be export-
> control issues.
> *ANYONE* in the business of exporting software _should_ be aware of that
> fact, and as a matter of basic 'due diligence' know about _their_ national
> laws on the matter, and how/where to find out what kinds of software are
> restricted, and on what basis.
> It is worth noting that since the original software author (Intel) put the
> "it is possible an export license may be required under some circumstances"
> notice on their software that anyone who takes said notice -off- had better
> have (1) a -solid- professionally-rendered legal opinion that no such license
> is required under _any_ circumstances, and (2) massive liability insuance
> in case they are wrong.
> The party that removes the warning notice of a possible risk *IS* liable
> to the party who 'relies' on such removal as evidence that no license is
> needed.
> If a cautionary notice was _never_ present, that is one thing, and one cannot
> draw conclusions from the omission.
> If a notice _was_ present, and "someone" removes it, that 'affirmtive acton'
> is a _very_ different thing.

Can this thread go away now?

Glen Barber
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to