The export restriction in question is, as CY points out, a matter of
U.S. law, which Maxima's license terms can't change. These laws apply
to technology with military uses *regardless* of whether it was funded
by the U.S. government, and regardless of whether it is
proprietary/commercial, open source, or even public domain. If you
build a death ray in your garage, the government reserves the right to
restrict its export to "unfriendly" countries. You will recall that for
a while, PGP could not legally be exported from the U.S. So this has
nothing to do with licenses. Other countries, by the way, have similar
laws. France, for example, had particularly stringent laws about
cryptographic technology until only a few years ago (I think it was
illegal to *use* PGP in France for a while).
The DOE's letter
(http://www.ma.utexas.edu/users/wfs/maxima-doe-auth.gif), it simply says
that derivatives of DOE Macsyma should mention the provisions of this
law. It does *not* incorporate the terms of the law into the license.
The Maxima license *does not* contain a geographical restriction. The
letter also does *not* say that Maxima requires export licenses even for
"sensitive" countries; it only says that it *may* require licenses.
This is just generic legal language.
Obviously, if the U.S. government had wanted to effectively restrict
distribution of Maxima to "sensitive" countries, it would have had to do
so a long time ago, and it certainly wouldn't have allowed it to be
openly available on the Web. There are many copies of Maxima
world-wide, including presumably in "sensitive" countries. The horse is
out of the barn.
Changing licenses for translated documentation (a) is unnecessary, and
has no effect, since there is no restriction in the license and (b) is
unauthorized, since a translation is clearly a "derived work" in
copyright terms; you can't just distribute it under any license you
want.
So let's not waste any more time on this non-issue. Please.
-s