--- michel.lavaud@univ-orleans.fr wrote:
> Hello Joris,
>
> > I don't understand this point. As far as I know, DOE has allowed
> > W. Shelter to distribute Maxima (not Macsyma) under the GPL.
> > I don't know of any geographic restrictions which apply to GPL
> programs,
> > except when these are explicitly stated. But maybe I did not look
> > well enough?
>
> Yes, I agree completely with you, however some advices seemed to
> differ, a few months ago, cf. the threads "Maxima 5.9.0 Release
> candidate 3" (30/31 october 2002) and COPYING1 (5 nov 2002). This is
> why I am asking the present status of Maxima, to know exactly if the
> file COPYING1 is still considered as valid or not, as it has not been
> removed.
It is still valid, and will be most likely for the forseeable future.
It was a condition of the original release of the software and we of
the project have no power to change it. We would have to explicitly
contact DOE and request that they lift the restriction, which they
probably can't do without permission from someone else, etc.
However, while files either from the original distribution or based of
of them are subject to this restriction, I see no reason that third
party contributions would be limited to this, unless one takes the
stance that all Maxima packages are derived works (enter fuzzy legal
turf). The thing is though, what good would they be without the main
program?
If you don't want your docs to be subject to the restriction, there is
no reason you couldn't maintain your own site which allows complete
distribution, and allow a copy to be distributed in the Maxima tarball
as well. (BTY, I'm going to consider more carefully the documentation
situation and in a few weeks I'll probably propose a formal license
arrangement to use for the documentation. For a while there wasn't
enough documentation to justify worrying about it but the time has come
now to clarify that. It will probably be something like GFDL and/or
OpenContent, but I don't know.)
> Its contents is:
>
> "DOE requires the following paragraph to accompany the distribution.
> It allows unrestricted export to most countries of the world, but
> does prohibit exports from the US to certain countries such as Cuba
or
> Iraq.
> "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."
What this actually MEANS is something none of us are really clear on,
as far as I know. Has anyone ever read the relevant sections of the
regulations? The bizarre thing is we couldn't stop it from getting
there anyway if someone wanted to get it in so I have no idea what the
purpose of this restriction is, but they didn't ask us. The internet
makes that impossible to stop. But unfortunately that's not a reason
for us to ignore the restriction - we will have to include it until
someone at DOE tells us officially we don't have to.
CY
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com