[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openswan-users
Subject:    Re: [Openswan Users] Openswan in USA
From:       Paul Wouters <paul () xelerance ! com>
Date:       2004-05-25 16:43:49
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0405251836220.12657-100000 () expansionpack ! xtdnet ! nl
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, 25 May 2004, Luís Henriques wrote:

> that uses several open/free software. One of these products is
> FreeS/Wan. The point is that we have potential clients for this product
> in US but, as far as I know, we are not able to distribute the product
> as it is now because of export/import laws.
> 
> Is this correct?

No. Importing is fine. Re-exporting might be a problem. Opensource code is
an excemption though, you can export/import that, even without registration/licence
I believe. Though these are decretes, not laws or rights, so it is subject to the
President's immediately retroactive cancelation. In other words, Bush can turn you
into a criminal whenever he wants. 

See further: http://www.freeswan.org/freeswan_trees/freeswan-2.06/doc/politics.html#exlaw


Export status of Linux FreeS/WAN

We believe our software is entirely exempt from these controls since the Wassenaar \
General Software Note says:

    The Lists do not control "software" which is either:

       1. Generally available to the public by . . . retail . . . or
       2. "In the public domain".

There is a note restricting some of this, but it is a sub-heading under point 1, so \
it appears not to apply to public domain software.

Their glossary defines "In the public domain" as:

    . . . "technology" or "software" which has been made available without \
restrictions upon its further dissemination.

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

We therefore believe that software freely distributed under the GNU Public License, \
such as Linux FreeS/WAN, is exempt from Wassenaar restrictions.


> How can we solve this problem? Is there a solution? I guess that this
> problem is typically solved by having two different software
> distributions: on for US and another for the rest of the world. Is this
> right? I would like to hear your own experiences with these kind of
> problems.

That is usually done not because of import/export restrictions, but because of US \
software patents. For instance, some modp groups (A priem number), and NAT-Traversal \
has been patented in the US, and you might need to get a licence to use \
freeswan/openswan within the US. (RSA licence is not neccessary, they allow \
free/opensource software to use their patents for free) 

Ofcourse, I am not a lawyer. You might want to contact the EFF or the FSF for \
professional advice.

Paul


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]