Joris--
I believe your analysis is incorrect in several ways.
First of all, the language in question is not part of the license. It
is information about legal restrictions which may (or may not) apply to
Maxima. The DOE did request that this language be distributed along
with the license. Note that it is a strong request ("should"), not a
requirement ("must"). The letter does ask that it "be included" in the
GPL, but I believe this is simply loose wording on the part of the DOE.
Secondly, the language in question doesn't even impose any conditions.
It simply states facts: "Distribution... is subject to ... regulations".
Though you or I may not agree with some provision of U.S. or French or
Maldivian law, it applies in the respective territories.
Third, I have seen no evidence that the copyright holders of Maxima
(M.I.T. and the estate of William Schelter) or the licensor from whom we
have received our rights (the U.S. Department of Energy) has any
intention of interfering with the distribution of Maxima in any way.
Maxima has been distributed under the GPL for almost five years in an
open and notorious way; the legal doctrine of laches would make it
difficult to interfere with this distribution at this point through
civil action. (Of course, if someone violated a criminal law in the
U.S. or any other country, that country might be able to prosecute him.
But that has nothing to do with the license.)
Fourth, you have asked that the FSF be consulted about this. The FSF
has no legal standing in this matter. They are not the copyright
holders or the licensors of Maxima. Of course, they have their opinion
about what exactly the GPL does and doesn't allow, but it is not they
who would enforce the Maxima license or the license of other software
incorporated into Maxima (except if it is software copyrighted by the
FSF).
Fifth, you are "warning" us of "potential unpleasant surprises". I have
stated why I am not concerned about litigation from M.I.T., the estate
of William Schelter, and the U.S. government. So presumably the
unpleasant surprises you have in mind are litigation by copyright
holders of other software which is incorporated into Maxima, on the
grounds that their license (GPL) is incompatible with that of Maxima.
Now, first of all, I do not believe there is a legal issue here (see the
first two points above). Secondly, no copyright holder has objected
yet, and I think they would be silly to. Third, we do not incorporate
software promiscuously; in fact, we are probably over-careful about it.
Finally, if some copyright holder *does* object, we always have the
possibility of yanking their code (of course this would be hard if it
were woven into Maxima, but this is not happening and not likely to
happen).
Sixth, much software attached to Maxima is attached at arms' length, and
so not subject to the "contagion" restrictions of the GPL. Where
exactly the line is between creating a derived work and simply
functionally connecting two programs has not been determined legally as
far as I know, but even if the FSF's legal position (which makes rather
strong claims) is upheld in its entirety, programs connected by piping
and the like are *not* subject to GPL contagion.
Finally, I think you are bringing the sensibilities of a good engineer
to a legal issue. The law is not applied mechanically. It is applied
by people to disputes between people. And one hopes reasonable people.
-s