Export law assurances, reporting

[Robert Levin]

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote:

> I'm concerned about the notification requirement 2.2(c), which was a subject
> of some great contention on the publicsource list in relation to the
> original APSL.  I argued on that list that this requirement could hinder
> code forks by creating a big documentation burden for anyone who wanted to
> fork the Darwin code.  But it's hard for me to see this problem as fatal.

It does remain a serious issue.  Voluntary notification is so likely to
occur normally that it's hard to see this as entirely appropriate as a
license provision.


Rob Levin