GNU GPL and Open Source Definition

[Rod Dixon]

Let's see we have two choices to slect from to indicate whether our
software is being distributed in violation of section 1201 of the
Copyright Act, the "readme.txt" file or the terms  software
license...hmm...which one might provide better legal standing to support
my argument to law enforcement of the United States, in this case, that my
software isn't intended to unlawfully crack access codes? I am not trying
to sound sarcastic, but i am intending to say we might want to think of
this matter in more practical terms until the law we may not like is
changed to be more balanced.

Rod


On Wed, 8 May 2002, phil hunt wrote:

> 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
>

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3