From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 7 21:48:32 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65772106566C for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 21:48:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com) Received: from mail.r-bonomi.com (ns2.r-bonomi.com [204.87.227.129]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5778FC0C for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 21:48:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (from bonomi@localhost) by mail.r-bonomi.com (8.14.3/rdb1) id o97LkVi0023071 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:46:31 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 16:46:31 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Bonomi Message-ID: <201010072146.o97LkVi0023071@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:48:32 -0000 > Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:23:02 +0200 > From: Erik Trulsson > To: "Randal L. Schwartz" > Cc: RW , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping > export-restricted software in the core > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 04:08:35PM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > > >>>>> "Erik" == Erik Trulsson writes: > > > > Do you have a different opinion, and is it a legal opinion? > > To me it looks much more like a case of some corporate standard > cover-your-ass boilerplate text that is used regardless of whether > there is reason to believe any particular piece of software needs any > special export approval. > That is an *exactly* correct reading of the text in question. What requires explicit permission from the U.S. government (or other national authority , for those in a different locale) *changes* over time. "Just because" it doesn't require a license _now_ doesn't mean that it will =never= need one. And simplarly, if it -does- need a license now it may _not_ need one at some (unknown) point in the future. *ALL* that language is doing is saying that the original licensor (INTEL) has _not_ made any determination as to what, *IF*ANY*, export controls may apply, now or at some unspeciied point in the future, to that code. AND that anyone who _does_ intend export said software has to (a) make that determination for themselves, and (b) _comply_ with such legal requirements themselves to be in compliance with the license from Intel. As a matter of _law_, those exact restrictions apply to *EVERY* piece of _every_ O/S -- OpenBSD, NetBSD, Open Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD, or 'whatever' -- that are accessed from a server that is located in the United States. It _doesn't_ matter where the code 'came from', you can import from anywhere, but certain things you _cannot_ 'export', even if you got it from 'somewhere outside the U.S.'-- a 'somewhere' that the person you're sending it to could go to themselves and get it. Intel is simply protecting _themselves_ against a =future= claim that _they_ (Intel) 'facilitated' the distrubution of 'export-controlled' software to the 'bad guys'. "When in doubt" you placard 'everything'. For stuf that you -give- away, there is nothing to be gained by spending the time/money to make the determinatin yourself -- It's not going to make you any additional profits if you do it, do "why bother?" applies.