GNU GPL and Open Source Definition

[phil hunt]

On Wednesday 08 May 2002  5:35 am, David Johnson wrote:
>
> Please note that I am not one of those people who believe that if it
> isn't Free Software then it must be Evil. If someone has a valid reason
> for restricting its use or distribution (it includes encryption,
> patented algorithms, etc) then I can't fault them for it. But don't call
> it free.

But they aren't valid reasons to restrict the use in a license.

If you are writing an open source program, and you are aware it might be 
illegal in some jurisdictions, and wish to cover your arse, it would (I
imagine) be just as effective (or ineffective) to do it by noting in the 
README file 	that it may be illegal as it would in a modified GPL.

-- 
<"><"><"> Philip Hunt <philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk> <"><"><">
"I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically 
advantageous for him to believe." 
                        -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael
                              Portillo, on soc.history.what-if
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3