Re: x.org non free?
Mickaël Leduque [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (I'm not related with debian, except being a debian user) I'm a bit worried by this file I found in x.org source : xc/README.crypto I'm sure this question has been answered hundreds of times and there's nothing worrying here, but the contents of this file seems to make all the files that are related to it non free. What did I miss? I'm not a developer either, but from the legal point of view you're right, I'd say. Their README.crypto as found in the google cache on http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:VhI_C_FqbYsJ:hanzubon.jp/mirrors/xorg/cvs/xc/README.crypto+x.org+xc/README.cryptohl=declient=firefox 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.E. they are making US export restrictions part of their license -- at least in german law, it doesn't matter whether they called the file LICENSE or README, they made it clear that they want to make this binding. This seems to be a violation of Nr. 5 of the DFSG, saying: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. Also, the x.org README.crypto limits redistribution: You may not export or re-export this software or any copy or adaptation in violation of any applicable laws or regulations. I'd say this conflicts Nr. 1 of the DFSG, saying: The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. So maybe somebody should talk to the x.org team. I think it's well possible that they simply wanted to make sure to comply with US law and overshot the mark. Ciao Michael
Re: x.org non free?
Michael Below [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Mickaël Leduque [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: (I'm not related with debian, except being a debian user) I'm a bit worried by this file I found in x.org source : xc/README.crypto I'm sure this question has been answered hundreds of times and there's nothing worrying here, but the contents of this file seems to make all the files that are related to it non free. What did I miss? 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.E. they are making US export restrictions part of their license -- I think they are simply stating facts, to make the user aware of the situation. at least in german law, it doesn't matter whether they called the file LICENSE or README, they made it clear that they want to make this binding. This seems to be a violation of Nr. 5 of the DFSG, saying: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. Also, the x.org README.crypto limits redistribution: You may not export or re-export this software or any copy or adaptation in violation of any applicable laws or regulations. Again, this is only stating facts that are always true, whether explicitly stated or not. I'd say this conflicts Nr. 1 of the DFSG, saying: The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. If the law places restrictions on distribution, there is nothing a license can do about it. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: x.org non free?
Mns Rullgrd wrote: 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.E. they are making US export restrictions part of their license -- I think they are simply stating facts, to make the user aware of the situation. If the law places restrictions on distribution, there is nothing a license can do about it. Is it not the case, however, that this paragraph is made a part of the license, immutable without the consent of all of the copyright owners? Meaning that, should the law change, the license won't? -- Lewis Jardine IANAL, IANADD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: x.org non free?
Lewis Jardine writes: Måns Rullgård wrote: 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.E. they are making US export restrictions part of their license -- I think they are simply stating facts, to make the user aware of the situation. If the law places restrictions on distribution, there is nothing a license can do about it. Is it not the case, however, that this paragraph is made a part of the license, immutable without the consent of all of the copyright owners? Meaning that, should the law change, the license won't? Which license? The copyright license from X.org contributors, or the export license from the US government? From the rest of README.crypto, I think it's clear that they are *not* attempting to condition the copyright license on acceptance of US export restrictions, and that they are instead just reminding users of the legal requirements imposed on anyone subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. For those outside the US's jurisdiction, the copyright license is the only one relevant to software freedom. Michael Poole
Re: x.org non free?
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.E. they are making US export restrictions part of their license -- I think they are simply stating facts, to make the user aware of the situation. 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
Re: x.org non free?
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
Re: x.org non free?
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 12:03:46PM +0100, Mickaël Leduque wrote: (I'm not related with debian, except being a debian user) I know x.org is not in debian (yet?), but before bothering someone there, I prefer talking about it here. I'm a bit worried by this file I found in x.org source : xc/README.crypto I'm sure this question has been answered hundreds of times and there's nothing worrying here, but the contents of this file seems to make all the files that are related to it non free. What did I miss? This is more a statement of what we can do upstream -- since the Xwraphelp.c file is developed in the US, and the main point of export is xorg.freedesktop.org (located in Portland), it's a general statement, since we can't knowingly export from the US to someone who will turn around and export to Cuba or Syria or whatever it is. It's mainly an exercise in BXA arse-covering, and should be worded a bit more clearly, I suppose. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
