Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The QPL is bad news in yet another way. Do we need a DFSG basis for "forces >people to break the law"?
Mm. It forces people to break the law if they exercise certain freedoms. China requires (used to require?) licensing of imported cryptography software. If it were GPLed, distributing modified versions would be illegal under copyright law (you couldn't actually satisfy the GPL's requirements) and if the recipient didn't have a license, under anti-crypto laws. Israel used to have similar provisions. It's an interesting question. How prevelant does a law have to be before we believe that being obliged to break it becomes non-free? Personally, I'd be inclined to say that countries that limit exports of technology are broken and we should treat them as if they don't exist, even though the UK is one of them. Maybe I should make more use of my Irish citizenship. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
