Re: LYNX-DEV dodging the gun

[Gregory S. Stark]

David Woolley <address@hidden> writes:
> I would argue that a GPLed version couldn't be produced without the consent
> of all the copyright holders, as it would require a "not for distribution
> in the USA (or France)" clause to be added to the licence.

Ah, we can agree such a clause would violate the GPL, however there's no
reason to think such a clause would be necessary. Someone outside the US 
would not be responsible for ensuring that you don't break any laws once
you get your copy. As long as no such clause is added there's no problem
with the GPL. And as long as they are distributing from a country in the
free world they wouldn't be concerned about the laws in France or the US.

Cool, a fully justified paragraph.

> Most of the interest in SSL Lynx is from the USA and the RSA patent still
> makes it impossible to distribute a complete SSL Lynx there, without 
> breaching a significant clause in the GPL and undermining the credibility
> of that licence.

First of all there's no reason to think "most" of the interest is in the US.
But more importantly there's no reason for people outside the US to allow
their agenda be dictated by US laws. If a programmer outside the US did the
work and maintained an ftp site with the modified sources he or she wouldn't
and shouldn't concern himself with appeasing the US authorities.

greg