[free-sklyarov] [tescoil@irtc.net: [linux-elitists] Anti-SSSCA strategy.]

[Seth David Schoen]

Karsten M. Self writes:

> 	(b) EXCEPTION -- Subsection (a) does not apply to the offer for
> 	sale or provision of, or other trafficking in, any
> 	previously-owned interactive digital device, if such device was
> 	legally manufactured or imported, and sold, prior to the
> 	effective date of regulations adopted under section 104 and not
> 	subsequently modified in violation of subsection (a) or 103(a)
> 
>     [The prohibition (here) of modifying code contravenes the GNU GPL,
>     definition of FSF Free Software, and OSI Open Source.]

That isn't necessarily true, because the licenses don't require that
the recipient be allowed to make modifications (or uses or
redistributions), just that the distributor will not forbid the
recipient to do these things.

You might remember that a lot of licenses tried to forbid people from
exporting software in violation of U.S. export law.  I argued against
those provisions and also pointed out that the U.S. export law would
apply to people in the U.S. whether or not it was mentioned in the
licenses.  Although export law prevented people from exercising some
rights granted by license -- as well as, many of us argued, some
rights of free speech -- its existence didn't directly contradict or
invalidate free licenses.

Software patents, similarly, don't contradict these licenses, even
though they are harmful to free software and prevent some people from
exercising rights.  Free software licenses do not insist that the law
in some place be sane or just; they just say "I, the copyright holder,
will give you one fewer problem".

-- 
Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org> | Its really terrible when FBI arrested
Temp.  http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | hacker, who visited USA with peacefull
down:  http://www.loyalty.org/   (CAF) | mission -- to share his knowledge with
     http://www.freesklyarov.org/      | american nation.  (Ilya V. Vasilyev)