[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: export policy, was Re: Package Maintainers Flags policy



On 05/26/2009 09:19 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> | From: Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa redhat com>
> 
> | On 05/26/2009 10:09 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> | > See above. Note that the Wassenaar Agreement excludes software that is
> | > in the "public domain", eg free/open source software.
> | 
> | This is not correct. "Public Domain" has a very specific legal meaning,
> | and 99% of FOSS does _not_ meet it. Public Domain is when the copyright
> | holder has explicitly abandoned his/her/its copyright on the work and
> | placed it into the Public Domain. (Note: In some countries, such as
> | Germany, this is impossible)
> 
> Tom is right about the meaning of "public domain" in US law.  This is
> not the meaning in the Wassenaar Agreement.

Hmm, I dug this out of the WA, and Hugh is right:

	"In the public domain"
	This means "technology" or "software" which has been made available
without 		
	restrictions upon its further dissemination.

	Note Copyright restrictions do not remove "technology" or "software"
from being "in the
	public domain".

A poor choice of words, especially since the terminology "public domain"
has had a well defined and accepted international legal meaning long
before the WA.

This definition also seems contradictory, as redistribution is not a
right automatically granted, it is only granted as an extension of
copyright.

However, it is noteworthy that Encryption software does not qualify for
this exception in the WA, which is the main reason that Fedora has this
export policy in the first place.

~spot


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]