[fab] EULA/Export Concerns

[Greg DeKoenigsberg]

Our community must handle dissent respectfully, while also recognizing the 
restrictions that we are forced to live with.

I understand and sympathize with Roozbeh.  And yet, the only *real* 
restriction here is that we may not *directly* distribute Fedora into 
embargoed destinations -- everyone knowing perfectly well that no *actual* 
restriction can ever be implemented.

--g

-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org
Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors
-------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Mark Webbink wrote:

> Roozbeh is certainly welcome to his opinions, but having been through
> this discussion many times before, this is a non-issue.  Fedora is
> U.S.-based, and Red Hat, as its distributors, has an obligation to abide
> by U.S. law regardless of what the GPL may say.  That law forbids the
> export of Fedora to certain countries and individuals.  Anyone who
> knowingly distributes or permits the distribution of Fedora in violation
> of U.S. export control laws is subject to substantial fines and criminal
> conviction.  This  is not dissimilar to the laws in other countries that
> regulate the import and export of goods, including computer software,
> and Fedora is obligated to respect all of those.  The fact that these
> laws exist does not override the intent of the licensor, i.e., that
> Fedora is free software, nor does it in my legal opinion violate the GPL
> (understanding that others, including the FSF, may disagree with me on
> this point).  However, the GPL does not relieve anyone from complying
> with the national laws in those countries within which they reside.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Patrick W. Barnes wrote:
> 
> >Roozbeh Pournader just posted the following on the fedoraproject.org wiki 
> >within his personal namespace.  I wanted to bring this to everyone's 
> >attention.  For Roozbeh, this is a bit of a personal issue, since export 
> >control in the U.S. technically requires that we not ship Fedora to Iran, 
> >where Roozbeh is located.
> >
> >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RoozbehPournader/EULA
> >
> >  
> >
> >>I am planning to keep notes about the problems of the Fedora EULA here. I
> >>consider this personal Fedora-related space, and am using this to help keep
> >>information about the problems
> >>[http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/development/i386/e
> >>ula.txt the current EULA] creates, specially by making Fedora non-free
> >>software.
> >>
> >>The main issues are:
> >> * Fedora is not free software
> >> * Fedora is not open source software
> >> * Fedora violates the GNU General Public License
> >> * EULAs are bad
> >>
> >>Random posts from my blog:
> >> * http://www.advogato.org/person/roozbeh/diary.html?start=8
> >> * http://www.advogato.org/person/roozbeh/diary.html?start=9
> >>
> >>== Fedora is not free software ==
> >>
> >>== Fedora is not open source ==
> >>
> >>== Fedora violates GPL ==
> >>
> >>== EULAs are bad ==
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Further reference:
> >
> >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA
> >http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Export
> >
> >IANAL...
> >
> >I don't see merit in all of Roozbeh's concerns, but they're worth looking into 
> >for the sake of Doing the Right Thing.
> >
> >  
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >fedora-advisory-board mailing list
> >fedora-advisory-board at redhat.com
> >http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
> >  
> >
>