--- Tuukka Toivonen <tuukkat@ees2.oulu.fi> wrote:
> What comes to the DOE export restrictions, to me it
> looks quite
> much like it is GPL incompatible. That is, Maxima
> really isn't GPL'ed
> after all, althought quite close--but unfortunately
> GPL incompatible,
> so you can't incorporate GPL code into Maxima
> codebase, if you want
> to go strictly legal way. To me it doesn't matter
> tough...
Unfortunately, especially in light of the WTC, they
are likely to be much tougher about this one on the
hill now. Also, if we want to use any other code
rather than writing it all ourselves, it may be a
significant issue. If we don't, then it doesn't
matter particularly - we just have to stop saying the
software is under GPL. Richard's code certainly
isn't, as he made clear. The thing is, there must be
some basis for the response Bill got when he talked to
the government folks. Was the original funding that
allowed the creation of Macsyma under DOE control, and
thus any code funded by that money was subject to
those restrictions?
Here's the relevant part:
"Distribution of this derivative work is subject to
the US Export Administration Regulations (Title 15 CFR
768-799), which implements the Export Administration
Act of 1979, as amendeded, and/or the International
Traffic in Arms Regulations, of 12-6-84, (Title 22 CFR
121-130), which implements the Arms Export Control Act
(22 USC 2728)and may require license for export."
Also, who does actually hold the copyright on the
source code? Based on my admittedly limited knowledge
of it's history, wheren't there a large number of
contributors over a long period of time?
Maybe it would be a good idea to try to clarify this
issue with the ESTSC? The letter Bill got from them
is here:
http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/wfs/maxima-doe-auth.gif
__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/