On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Rick Moen wrote: > Quoting Jim Jagielski ([email protected]): > >> BTW: How is this different from, say, the US export control provisions? >> In both cases, a codebase is encumbered by external, and "localized" >> restrictions. So does this mean that software distributed out of >> the US, no matter the OSI license, isn't "really" open source? > > During the period that the RSA algorithm was encumbered by a (somewhat > weak and potentially challengable) patent in USA jurisdictions, mod_ssl > was widely considered to effectively not be open source when deployed in > the USA, yes. >
But that's not the point... the point is that if we are looking at adjusting the OSD, or acceptance/validation of a license, based on whether or not it addresses patents, then why aren't we also worried about such issues as the export control, etc... I see no difference between the statements "We can't approve this because it doesn't address patents" and "We can't approve this because it doesn't address the US export laws." _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
