Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 18:58:14 -0400 From: Glen Barber <glen.j.barber@gmail.com> To: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core Message-ID: <4CAE5086.6040805@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201010072247.o97MlNUC023450@mail.r-bonomi.com> References: <201010072247.o97MlNUC023450@mail.r-bonomi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/7/10 6:47 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote: >> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> >> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:46:34 -0700 >> Subject: Re: Like it or not, >> Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software >> in the core >> >> >> I understand that entirely. Which is why it would be reasonable (and >> downright ethical) to ensure that every FreeBSD integrator be made well >> aware of this restriction. >> >> It hadn't occurred to *me* for example to think that FreeBSD might be >> restricted. > > We are not responsible for _your_ lack of understanding OF THE LAW. > > But then, you've been there before on that, and learned the 'hard way' > didn't you. > > Pure and simple, _if_ there is software involved, there *MAY* be export- > control issues. > > *ANYONE* in the business of exporting software _should_ be aware of that > fact, and as a matter of basic 'due diligence' know about _their_ national > laws on the matter, and how/where to find out what kinds of software are > restricted, and on what basis. > > It is worth noting that since the original software author (Intel) put the > "it is possible an export license may be required under some circumstances" > notice on their software that anyone who takes said notice -off- had better > have (1) a -solid- professionally-rendered legal opinion that no such license > is required under _any_ circumstances, and (2) massive liability insuance > in case they are wrong. > > The party that removes the warning notice of a possible risk *IS* liable > to the party who 'relies' on such removal as evidence that no license is > needed. > > If a cautionary notice was _never_ present, that is one thing, and one cannot > draw conclusions from the omission. > > If a notice _was_ present, and "someone" removes it, that 'affirmtive acton' > is a _very_ different thing. > Can this thread go away now? -- Glen Barber
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CAE5086.6040805>