trans-coord/gnun/licenses gpl-faq.html license-...

[Yavor Doganov]

CVSROOT:        /sources/trans-coord
Module name:    trans-coord
Changes by:     Yavor Doganov <yavor>   10/07/28 18:10:07

Modified files:
        gnun/licenses  : gpl-faq.html license-list.html 

Log message:
        Automatic sync from the master www repository.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/licenses/gpl-faq.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.23&r2=1.24
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/licenses/license-list.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.46&r2=1.47

Patches:
Index: gpl-faq.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/licenses/gpl-faq.html,v
retrieving revision 1.23
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -b -r1.23 -r1.24
--- gpl-faq.html        3 Jul 2010 18:10:10 -0000       1.23
+++ gpl-faq.html        28 Jul 2010 18:10:07 -0000      1.24
@@ -384,6 +384,11 @@
     software with some sort of installation software.  Does that
     installer need to have a GPL-compatible license?</a></li>
 
+    <li><a href="#ExportWarranties">Does a distributor violate the GPL
+    if they require me to &ldquo;represent and warrant&rdquo; that I
+    am located in the US, or that I intend to distribute the software
+    in compliance with relevant export control laws?</a></li>
+
     <li><a href="#v3Under4and5">The beginning of GPLv3 section 6 says
     that I can convey a covered work in object code form &ldquo;under
     the terms of sections 4 and 5&rdquo; provided I also meet the
@@ -2549,6 +2554,48 @@
 result, the terms of the GPL do not apply to the installation software.</p>
 </dd>
 
+<dt><b><a name="ExportWarranties">Some distributors of GPL'd software
+require me in their umbrella EULAs or as part of their downloading
+process to &ldquo;represent and warrant&rdquo; that I am located in
+the US or that I intend to distribute the software in compliance with
+relevant export control laws.  Why are they doing this and is it a
+violation of those distributors' obligations under GPL?</a></b></dt>
+
+<dd><p>This is not a violation of the GPL.  Those distributors (almost
+all of whom are commercial businesses selling free software
+distributions and related services) are trying to reduce their own
+legal risks, not to control your behavior.  Export control law in the
+United States <em>might</em> make them liable if they knowingly export
+software into certain countries, or if they give software to parties
+they know will make such exports.  By asking for these statements from
+their customers and others to whom they distribute software, they
+protect themselves in the event they are later asked by regulatory
+authorities what they knew about where software they distributed was
+going to wind up.  They are not restricting what you can do with the
+software, only preventing themselves from being blamed with respect to
+anything you do.  Because they are not placing additional restrictions
+on the software, they do not violate section 10 of GPLv3 or section 6
+of GPLv2.</p>
+
+<p>The FSF opposes the application of US export control laws to free
+software.  Not only are such laws incompatible with the general
+objective of software freedom, they achieve no reasonable governmental
+purpose, because free software is currently and should always be
+available from parties in almost every country, including countries
+that have no export control laws and which do not participate in
+US-led trade embargoes.  Therefore, no country's government is
+actually deprived of free software by US export control laws, while no
+country's citizens <em>should</em> be deprived of free software,
+regardless of their governments' policies, as far as we are concerned.
+Copies of all GPL-licensed software published by the FSF can be
+obtained from us without making any representation about where you
+live or what you intend to do.  At the same time, the FSF understands
+the desire of commercial distributors located in the US to comply with
+US laws.  They have a right to choose to whom they distribute
+particular copies of free software; exercise of that right does not
+violate GPL unless they add contractual restrictions beyond those
+permitted by GPL.</p></dd>
+
 <dt><b><a name="SubscriptionFee">Can I use
 GPLed software on a device that will stop operating if customers do
 not continue paying a subscription fee?</a></b></dt>
@@ -3355,7 +3402,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2010/07/03 18:10:10 $
+$Date: 2010/07/28 18:10:07 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>

Index: license-list.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/licenses/license-list.html,v
retrieving revision 1.46
retrieving revision 1.47
diff -u -b -r1.46 -r1.47
--- license-list.html   3 Jul 2010 18:10:10 -0000       1.46
+++ license-list.html   28 Jul 2010 18:10:07 -0000      1.47
@@ -1398,12 +1398,16 @@
 <dt><a id="Squeak" href="http://squeak.org/SqueakLicense/";>
     Squeak license</a></dt>
 <dd>
-<p>As applied to software, this is not a free software license because
-it requires all users in whatever country to obey US export control
-laws.  As applied to fonts, it also does not permit modification.</p>
+<p>The original Squeak license, as applied to software, is not a free
+software license because it requires all users in whatever country to
+obey US export control laws.  As applied to fonts, it also does not
+permit modification.</p>
 <p>In addition, it has a requirement for users to indemnify the
 developer, which is enough to make many users think twice about using it
 at all.</p>
+<p>Recent versions of Squeak are released under an
+<a href="#Expat">Expat-style License</a> with some portions of the code
+under the <a href="#apache2">Apache License 2.0</a>.</p>
 </dd>
 
 
@@ -1786,7 +1790,7 @@
   <p>
     Updated:
     <!-- timestamp start -->
-    $Date: 2010/07/03 18:10:10 $
+    $Date: 2010/07/28 18:10:07 $
     <!-- timestamp end -->
   </p>
 </div>