[Gfoss] restrizioni nella distribuzione di sw libero?

[Francesco P. Lovergine]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 02:33:40PM +0100, Paolo Cavallini wrote:
> http://geomaticblog.net/2010/01/27/sourceforge-tambien-aplica-las-leyes-de-exportacion-de-eeuu/
> Il problema per osgeo era nota da tempo, ma speravo (chissa' perche') che fosse stato
> risolto. Mi pare una situazione molto piu' che sgradevole, in aperto contrasto con le
> licenze libere.
> Qualcuno ne sa di piu'?
> Saluti.

On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 01:14:53AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> > Fedora as a distribution is affected by export control regulations as
> > any software subjected to US laws from the legal perspective.
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Distribution/Download/ExportRegulations
> >
> > Clause 8 in GPL mentions that such regulations are compatible with the
> > license but can you confirm FSF's viewpoints on this?

Section 8 of GPLv2 doesn't make the sort of sweeping policy statement
you're suggesting here.  You'll note that we took this clause out of GPLv3
-- but you're not suddenly going to get into export restriction trouble
because of it.

The question to ask is: what requirement of the GPL does the law prevent
you from fulfilling?  When it comes to export restrictions, the answer is
none.  If you comply with local export restrictions, you will not run afoul
of any requirements in the GPL.  Therefore, there's no conflict.

Export restrictions limit who you can give the software to.  The GPL has no
problem with you being picky about who you give the software to: if you
want, you can decide that you'll only distribute to paying customers, or
people with blue hair.  So the fact that you also decide not to distribute
to Iranians and Syrians is no problem as far as the license is concerned.

Best regards,

-- Brett Smith Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation

Rif: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FreeSoftwareAnalysis/FSF

Detto fuori dei denti una copyleft assertion non implica che si possa
fare quel che minchia pare, ivi compreso violare la legge federale degli
Stati Uniti. E non c'e' alcun conflitto in tale asserzione rispetto al FOSS.

Per anni e' esistito non-us.debian.org in Europa per consentire a SPI Inc.
di non avere problemi con il governo US in merito alla esportazione di
software con l'encryption forte come openssh/openssl. SF potrebbe fare
lo stesso se volesse, ma evidentemente non gli frega un accidenti.

Just my 2cents.


-- 
Francesco P. Lovergine