> > 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.
So could I. Nevertheless, with the time, I have followed many
discussions about licenses, so I thought that my remarks might
be useful for you.
> 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.
No, I do not misunderstand your position. I am not threathening you
with an action in court :^) However, I feel that I have to warn you
against potential unpleasant surprises due to licensing issues.
> 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.
OK, you are talking about
http://maxima.sourceforge.net/misc/maxima-doe-auth.png
> That's all we've got on this, and we are bound by that letter.
Yes, and the paragraphs "Distribution ..." and "We have ..."
don't look nice in relation to the GPL.
> 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.
We are *not* talking about the "Open Source Definition" here,
but about the "GNU General Public License". From a juridical
point of view, additional restrictions on your license should
be compatible with the GNU GPL.
What you can do though, is release Maxima under another,
BSD-like license. The authorization letter seems to have
a broad scope and DOE does not seem to care what precise
license you take, as long as the export restriction is included.
However, if you decide to change the license, don't forget that you will
no longer be able to include GPL-licensed pieces of software in Maxima.
> 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."
No, I think that the DOE letter states that the restrictions
should be mentioned in the license itself:
"... the previous paragraph should be included in the GPL and ..."
> 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.
Once again, I think that the Distributor has to meet two restrictions:
the GPL restrictions and the DOE restriction that the GPL license
should include the addional export restriction (which does not seem
to be compatible with the GPL).
> 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.
I think that there are several things you may do:
* Contact the GNU folks and their legal experts.
Drawback: if they decide that the restriction is incompatible
with the GPL, then they will ask you to quickly change
the license or get things straight.
* Bother the DOE and ask them what they propose to
make their restrictions compatible with the GPL.
Drawback: they may become irritated and not allow to
do you anything anymore afterwards.
* Change the license to a BSD-like license which includes
the export restriction and ask DOE to confirm that
they don't object to that. Drawback: you need the permission
of *all* contributors to the free version of Maxima and
you need to be sure that this is really what you want.