--- Joris van der Hoeven <Joris.VanDerHoeven@math.u-psud.fr> wrote:
>
> I fear that the geographical restriction in the license is not
> compatible with the GNU GPL. Here is what the GPL says:
>
> 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
> certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted
> interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program
> under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution
> limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is
> permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such
> case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in
> the body of this License.
>
> It seems that geographical restrictions are only permitted if
> the use of the program might be restricted in the *other* countries
> (Iraq, Noth-Korea, etc.) *because of* patents or copyrighted
> *interfaces*. So, I am afraid, you will have to clarify this
> situation: at it stands now, you have no legal basis for distributing
> Maxima under its current license.
It's a subtle situation. I'll try to explain my thinking below, but
remember I know very little about law and could very easily be wrong.
In any case I think you misunderstand the position of the people on the
project - we have NO power to change any of this ourselves. The terms
under which the software are released are fixed by the original
conditions of the DOE release. Read the original letter in the Misc
section on the website. That's all we've got on this, and we are bound
by that letter.
The only relevant thing I can find is this part of the Open Source
Definition:
"5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
persons.
Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the
maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to
contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license
from locking anybody out of the process.
Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions
for certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn
licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are
obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such
restrictions itself."
I would say that's what COPYING1 does - it is simply an informational
message that notifies users that Maxima falls within the limits of
those laws. It does not demand they be accepted as a condition of
accepting the license, but informs the user that whether they accept it
or not those conditions apply. Whether or not you agree to the GPL you
can't export Maxima, so they are two separate issues. I think some
cryptographic software deals with issues like this. Indeed, I think
there are three layers at work here:
1. Regular user. Remember, a regular user does NOT have to accept the
GPL in order to use the software. They just can't redistribute it
without accepting it, domestically or otherwise.
2. Distributor - GPL restrictions. This is the copyright and license
part of the equation. Fairly standard. Applies to all distribution
situations allowed by law.
3. Distributor - US Law. This trumps everything, and says program is
subject to these laws. Our license doesn't HAVE to restrict these
things - the law already does. Our duty is to inform everyone that
these laws apply. Hence COPYING1.
If someone wants to do the research to figure out why they think Maxima
needs to be under those restrictions and what it would take to lift
them, that is probably the only way to clarify the issue. The position
of the project up until this point was that the export restrictions
weren't a serious limitation, and we were just glad to be able to
legally share the code. I guess there is an unspoken fear that if we
bother the DOE too much about this they might decide to try and change
their minds about releasing Maxima.
> They apparently think that Maxima is a new kind of atomic bomb.
I have no idea what they are thinking, unless perhaps it's part of some
larger policy that tools funded by the US government should not be
usable in countries like Cuba. Someone should really do the research
and find out what those restrictions really mean. All we have been
going on is that comment Bill Schelter added above the required text. I
don't even know where to begin - does anyone have enough legal
background to figure it out?
Actually, I wonder if it might be bigger than just Maxima - does anyone
know what the export restrictions were/are on things like commercial
Macsyma, Mathematica, Maple, Matlab, etc? Do they have export
restrictions? Maybe it's a case of any program of a certain ability
written in the US is automatically restricted from distribution to
certain countries or something? I don't know what the laws are like in
that respect, so I don't know. Maybe they would flip out if Octave
were released in Cuba too for all I know.
We don't care for the restrictions, primarily because they cause this
discussion to come up periodically, but it would be a great deal of
work to find out what was behind them. It's not the only issue either
- we aren't sure who officially has copyright over some of the files
now that Bill is gone - probably his family - and since he was the one
in best contact with the DOE we have lost that connection too. The
language of the letter seems to indicate Bill was given broader powers
than the GPL, and he chose to release under GPL.
Maybe the DOE would respond favorably to contact - they did indicate an
interest in derivative works Bill might develop, and I don't know if
they have been kept up to date on what happened since his death. The
question is - do we want to stir up the dust? I honestly don't know.
Resolving this once and for all would be a very good thing, but we
might do the project much more harm than good.
CY
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com