Re: LYNX-DEV SSLLynx (was: ender: address@hidden)

[David Woolley]

The subject line and reply-to line seem to have got mangled here.
> 
> > Foundation first - it is not clear whether one can create a derived work
> > which it is illegal to give to the original copyright owner!).
> 
> It isnt my problem if a US citizen gets involved in a US civil court action.

This is basically saying that the GPL is effectively or legally
unenforceable outside the USA, and there is no moral obligation,
if it is only effectively enforceable.  It is the GPL that says that
any conflict with a patent ANYWHERE in the world makes the GPL void
for that software, unless it is licensed with as specially permitted
clause, allowing a restriction on distribution to certain countries.
The grey area is whether this clause can be imposed on a derived work
without the permission of the original copyright owners.  Another clause
forbids the general inclusion of additional restrictive clauses.

> Correct - which is why PGP isnt available under the GPL in the US, just the
> free world.

The current PGP (or the last one I got) is issued under a no commercial use
(you must pay something well over GBP 50 to Ascom Tech for commercial use)
licence.  Using it for commercial purposes might not be a patent violation
in the UK (although a misunderstanding on this point may be one reason why
the royalty requirement was imposed) but would be a copyright violation, 
unless someone has rewritten the whole program, not just the crypto parts,
from the interface spec.

Incidentally, one UK entrepeneur and regular poster on uk.legal claims to
have obtained software patents (in other areas) in the UK and was claiming
to be negotiating for the commercial sale of PGP.  That at least introduces
enough fear uncertainty and doubt (which is what a lot of software patents are
about anyway) that many potential commercial users might well pay up rather
the pay for a lawyer to confirm the position.  I've not followed uk.legal
for about a year, so I don't know what he is doing at the moment.

The earlier versions of PGP are probably not distributable for the same 
reasons as I quote for Lynx, the GPL clause saying that a conflict between the
GPL and a patent makes the GPL void.

> free world.

According to piece on SSL in the O'Reilly book on Apache, the UK is not
free in that an export licence is technically required here, however
the authorities take a pragmatic approach, and don't try to enforce
the unenforceable.  I seem to remember that the author is UK based.