1:10 p.m.
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora
Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright
co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the
name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located
in Iran":
http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2.91/x86_64/os/eu...
But the problem is that I live there, and have been living there while
working on all those pieces of software
Is Fedora allowed to do that, even when I have copylefted parts of the
software under GPL and LGPL? Won't that be adding more restrictions, and
against the explicit text in the licenses that says "You may not impose
any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
granted herein"? Also, isn't the same EULA claim that the whole
collective work is under GPL? If yes, how can it add those restrictions?
I would appreciate any kind of comment or recommendations, on-list or
off-list. This has somehow created a mental problem for me...
Roozbeh Pournader
1:26 p.m.
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use
Fedora
Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright
co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the
name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located
in Iran":
Odd isn't it. Something you created, you cannot use because of
longstanding feud between your country and the US.
http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2.91/x86_64/os/eu...
But the problem is that I live there, and have been living there while
working on all those pieces of software
However the trade sanctions between the USA (where this agreement was
created) and the named countries (Iraq, Iran, Cuba, etc.) is quite
clear. At first I thought this was the standard "128 bit encryption"
that the US Government doesn't want in "unfriendly" hands. But the
wording tells me that this applies to the whole software. As long as
Fedora as a whole is a product of USA origins, then I'm afraid that you
won't be able to "legally" use the software. Then again I think most
computer software of USA based companies falls into that prohibition,
including Micro$not.
I would appreciate any kind of comment or recommendations, on-list or
off-list. This has somehow created a mental problem for me...
Roozbeh Pournader
Ooo. Ick. [Standard disclaimer: IANAL] Yes Red Hat is pretty much
REQUIRED to restrict distribution of this software to the nations on the
list. There is a clause that with a proper permit and government
clearances and a guarantee that this software won't be used to make or
control WMD's ... that could be your only legal option.
--
Mike Jezierski - IT Engineer
Systec Conveyors - Indianapolis, IN
V: +1.3178909230 x 234 F: +1.3178909232
-=-=-
Would Yoda use an HP-RPN Calculator?
1:34 p.m.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:26:49 -0500, Michael Jezierski - Systec
Conveyors <mjezierski(a)systecconveyors.com> wrote:
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
>I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora
>Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright
>co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the
>name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not
located
>in Iran":
>
However the trade sanctions between the USA (where this agreement was
created) and the named countries (Iraq, Iran, Cuba, etc.) is quite
clear. At first I thought this was the standard "128 bit encryption"
that the US Government doesn't want in "unfriendly" hands. But the
wording tells me that this applies to the whole software. As long as
Fedora as a whole is a product of USA origins, then I'm afraid that you
won't be able to "legally" use the software. Then again I think most
computer software of USA based companies falls into that prohibition,
including Micro$not.
I'm not a lawyer either, but given the trade sanctions, I wonder if
Fedora can even redistribute code that came from Iran? This is
definitely a sticky wicket and an interesting case for Lessig's "code
== law" mantra. Not that's it's *technically* difficult for the OP to
get around, but the ethical concerns he raises are something that Red
Hat should definitely attempt to address. Given their history of
attempting to support the Free Software and Open Source ethoses (sp?),
I'd think they would work hard to do the Right Thing, which is
probably legal assistance to acquire the proper permit and so forth.
Then again, this could end up being a case of the irresistible force
meeting the immovable object.
--
Kyle Maxwell
[krmaxwell(a)gmail.com]
2:06 p.m.
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 21:10, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use
Fedora
Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright
co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the
name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located
in Iran":
http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2.91/x86_64/os/eu...
But the problem is that I live there, and have been living there while
working on all those pieces of software
Is Fedora allowed to do that, even when I have copylefted parts of the
software under GPL and LGPL? Won't that be adding more restrictions, and
against the explicit text in the licenses that says "You may not impose
any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
granted herein"? Also, isn't the same EULA claim that the whole
collective work is under GPL? If yes, how can it add those restrictions?
IANAL, but I don't think GPL is applicalble to your case. GPL requires
no additional restrictions on distributed software, but since RedHat
does not "distribute" software to you GPL this requirement does not
apply.
I would appreciate any kind of comment or recommendations, on-list or
off-list. This has somehow created a mental problem for me...
This situation is quite absurd, but RedHat has to play by the rules -
even if this requires to write completely unenforceable EULA. The only
recommendation I could give is to use any European distro.
Roozbeh Pournader
Pavel.
2:06 p.m.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use
Fedora
Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright
co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the
name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located
in Iran":
Does Iran recognize US copyright law? If not I think you can probably
do whatever you want with Fedora and still be on the right side of the
only law that presently applies to you!
-sam
2:12 p.m.
Sam Tregar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
>I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora
>Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright
>co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the
>name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located
>in Iran":
>
>
Does Iran recognize US copyright law? If not I think you can probably
do whatever you want with Fedora and still be on the right side of the
only law that presently applies to you!
-sam
Red Hat is a US based company though. Knowingly sending software to a
nation under a trade sanction is illegal, not for our Iranian colleague
but for Red Hat. Just like trying to find an American car in Cuba made
after 1959.
--
Mike Jezierski - IT Engineer
Systec Conveyors - Indianapolis, IN
V: +1.3178909230 x 234 F: +1.3178909232
-=-=-
HYUNDAI Hope You Understand Nothing's Driveable And Inexpensive
2:23 p.m.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Michael Jezierski - Systec Conveyors wrote:
> Does Iran recognize US copyright law? If not I think you can
probably
> do whatever you want with Fedora and still be on the right side of the
> only law that presently applies to you!
>
Red Hat is a US based company though. Knowingly sending software to a nation
under a trade sanction is illegal, not for our Iranian colleague but for Red
Hat. Just like trying to find an American car in Cuba made after 1959.
That may be true, but it has nothing to do with the legality of using
the software in Iran. Obviously that issue is covered by Iranian law,
not US law!
-sam
2:41 p.m.
Sam Tregar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Michael Jezierski - Systec Conveyors wrote:
>>Does Iran recognize US copyright law? If not I think you can probably
>>do whatever you want with Fedora and still be on the right side of the
>>only law that presently applies to you!
>>
>>
>>
>Red Hat is a US based company though. Knowingly sending software to a nation
>under a trade sanction is illegal, not for our Iranian colleague but for Red
>Hat. Just like trying to find an American car in Cuba made after 1959.
>
>
That may be true, but it has nothing to do with the legality of using
the software in Iran. Obviously that issue is covered by Iranian law,
not US law!
-sam
My point is - it's not illegal for OP to *use* the software. It's
illegal for Red Hat to distribute it to nations which the USA has a
trade embargo against. How can OP *use* the software if it's illegal
under USA law for it to be distributed to him, since it is technically
an work of USA origins? There's the billion Zloty question.
--
Mike Jezierski - IT Engineer
Systec Conveyors - Indianapolis, IN
V: +1.3178909230 x 234 F: +1.3178909232
-=-=-
Drunk driver’s alibi: “I didn’t know I was loaded!”
2:55 p.m.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Michael Jezierski - Systec Conveyors wrote:
My point is - it's not illegal for OP to *use* the software.
It's
illegal for Red Hat to distribute it to nations which the USA has a
trade embargo against.
That sounds right.
How can OP *use* the software if it's illegal under USA law for
it
to be distributed to him, since it is technically an work of USA
origins? There's the billion Zloty question.
That's easy. He isn't covered by US law, so of course US law has no
effect on the legality of his actions. Just because something is of
US origin doesn't give its license the force of law in a foreign legal
system. Only the laws of Iran can give it that force. Since I'm not
an Iranian lawyer I can only guess that he can do whatever he wants
with Fedora.
Consider the possibility that I might possess something exported
illegally from Iran, for example Iranian pornography. Now, just
because that material was illegal to create and export in Iran doesn't
mean it's illegal for me to possess it in the US. That's because I'm
subject to US law not Iranian law. It seems that the issue is roughly
the same with the poster and Fedora.
-sam
6:32 p.m.
On Sep 21, 2004, at 3:55 PM, Sam Tregar wrote:
That's easy. He isn't covered by US law, so of course US law
has no
effect on the legality of his actions. Just because something is of
US origin doesn't give its license the force of law in a foreign legal
system. Only the laws of Iran can give it that force. Since I'm not
an Iranian lawyer I can only guess that he can do whatever he wants
with Fedora.
I hate to rain on everybody's parade, but remember Manuel Noriega?
Former dictator of Panama arrested (in Panama) for drug trafficking
under US law even though he never set foot on US soil? (Except, of
course, when he was invited by US presidents!) The US has a long
standing habit of enforcing its laws *outside* its borders. I am no
lawyer, but if the US got in enough of a dander over the export of
something from the US to another country it would most definitely go
after *both* ends of the export/import pipe--and they wouldn't care
about any EULA/contract or anything else between the two parties. Mind
you, I'm not suggesting that you actually pay attention to such
silliness!
--
Patrick D. McSwiggen pat.mcswiggen(a)uc.edu
Mathematical Sciences 513-556-4080
University of Cincinnati 513-556-3417 FAX
2:22 p.m.
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 22:06, Sam Tregar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora
> Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright
> co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the
> name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not
located
> in Iran":
Does Iran recognize US copyright law? If not I think you can probably
do whatever you want with Fedora and still be on the right side of the
only law that presently applies to you!
I don't think US copyright law has anything to do with the matter. EULA
is a sort of contract, so by agreeing to it, Roozbeh can't use fedora
legally.
-sam
2:28 p.m.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Pasha wrote:
I don't think US copyright law has anything to do with the
matter. EULA
is a sort of contract, so by agreeing to it, Roozbeh can't use fedora
legally.
That's only true if Iranian law recognizes the EULA, which I imagine
would have something to do with recognition of US copyright law.
Maybe the two are completely separate. I'm not an Iranian lawyer so I
can't say for certain.
My point is that this question can't be answered based on the GPL or
any other contract based on US copyright law. These documents most
likely have no legal force in Iran. What's legal for Roozbeh is
defined entirely by the Iranian legal system.
-sam
2:34 p.m.
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 22:28, Sam Tregar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Pasha wrote:
> I don't think US copyright law has anything to do with the matter. EULA
> is a sort of contract, so by agreeing to it, Roozbeh can't use fedora
> legally.
That's only true if Iranian law recognizes the EULA, which I imagine
would have something to do with recognition of US copyright law.
Maybe the two are completely separate. I'm not an Iranian lawyer so I
can't say for certain.
You are probably right - only Iranian contract law defines whether the
EULA is valid in Iran. Still, I don't think recognition of US copyright
law has anything to do with it. But I'm neither Iranian nor American
lawyer (and neither Iranian nor American at all :)
My point is that this question can't be answered based on the GPL or
any other contract based on US copyright law. These documents most
likely have no legal force in Iran. What's legal for Roozbeh is
defined entirely by the Iranian legal system.
-sam
2:34 p.m.
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use
Fedora
Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright
co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the
name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located
in Iran":
http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2.91/x86_64/os/eu...
But the problem is that I live there, and have been living there while
working on all those pieces of software
Is Fedora allowed to do that, even when I have copylefted parts of the
software under GPL and LGPL? Won't that be adding more restrictions, and
against the explicit text in the licenses that says "You may not impose
any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
granted herein"? Also, isn't the same EULA claim that the whole
collective work is under GPL? If yes, how can it add those restrictions?
I would appreciate any kind of comment or recommendations, on-list or
off-list. This has somehow created a mental problem for me...
Roozbeh Pournader
I just talked to President Bush, and he said that if you dismantle your
nuclear reactor and stop disrupting democracy in Iraq, that he will let
you use Fedora Core without restriction.
Seriously, this export restriction only applies to Red Hat. The U.S.
law does not apply to you, unless Iran recongizes U.S. export
restrictions and applies the restriction to you, which I highly doubt.
If you download Fedora Core from a mirror outside the U.S., you avoid
any potential conflicts.
I believe only Red Hat can be held accountable, especially if the U.S.
government finds out that Fedora Core's name is a code word for Nuclear
Core, in which Fedora Core runs your new reactor. Just kidding.
Isn't it a shame that the world cannot just put down the guns, theology,
ideology, politics and just write code. It would be a better place.
Pasha has just pointed out that EULA might state that you cannot use
Fedora Core if your on the export list, if the EULA says that, then
according to Red Hat, you are an illegal user in their eyes.
Byte
8:52 p.m.
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use
Fedora
Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright
co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the
name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located
in Iran":
http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2.91/x86_64/os/eu...
But the problem is that I live there, and have been living there while
working on all those pieces of software
Is Fedora allowed to do that, even when I have copylefted parts of the
software under GPL and LGPL? Won't that be adding more restrictions, and
against the explicit text in the licenses that says "You may not impose
any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
granted herein"? Also, isn't the same EULA claim that the whole
collective work is under GPL? If yes, how can it add those restrictions?
I don't think that it is the Fedora project that add those restrictions,
but rather the US government. Duke Univ. probably feels they have to
"cover their butts" by making you jump through that hoop.
Isn't there a non-USA mirror you could download from?
--
-John (john(a)os2.dhs.org)
11:06 p.m.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:40:04PM +0330, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora
Core legally.
Get an import license .... for your one or two copies.
....
name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that
I am not located
in Iran":
...
I would appreciate any kind of comment or recommendations, on-list
or
off-list. This has somehow created a mental problem for me...
The collection of software that is Fedora contains strong
encryption software in many places including the web browser.
Just as one closed source module can 'taint' the kernel
one restricted technology will 'taint' the collection
that is Fedora and limit the distribution.
Distribution of strong encryption technology (and I suspect other
technology in Fedora too) by any US company, person, or other legal
entity to a list of nations including Iran is restricted by US law.
There is more involved here than GPL and copyright.
http://www.bxa.doc.gov/encryption/regs.htm
http://www.bxa.doc.gov/policiesandregulations/regionalconsiderations.htm
http://www.bxa.doc.gov/policiesandregulations/RegionalConsiderations/Iran...
and more...
As others pointed out GPL mandates that source follow distribution but
does not mandate distribution.
Work on unrestricted distributions for now.
Pray for sanity in the world.
--
T o m M i t c h e l l
3:37 a.m.
Hi Roozbeh,
On Tuesday, 21. September 2004 20:10, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use
Fedora
Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright
co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the
name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located
in Iran":
http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2.91/x86_64/os/eula
.txt
But the problem is that I live there, and have been living there while
working on all those pieces of software
The restrictions are required by US law. If you download Fedora from any
mirror outside the US then these restrictions do not apply as long as these
other download locations are not affected by likewise regulations.
It's perfectly legal **for you** to download Fedora from any mirror outside of
the US without these restrictions.
Is Fedora allowed to do that, even when I have copylefted parts of
the
software under GPL and LGPL? Won't that be adding more restrictions, and
against the explicit text in the licenses that says "You may not impose
any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
granted herein"? Also, isn't the same EULA claim that the whole
collective work is under GPL? If yes, how can it add those restrictions?
It's not a matter of licenses or EULAs. It's a matter of US export
regulations. And those apply to all exported goods, no matter under what
conditions they are usually distributed. Common, binding law always beats the
specifics of an individual license agreement.
I would appreciate any kind of comment or recommendations, on-list
or
off-list. This has somehow created a mental problem for me...
Without any further discussion, everybody with a sane mind knows these export
restrictions on Fedora and its encryption elements are plain ridiculous. But
if the US wants to play the game like that then you have to adapt. You said
you were the copyright holder on parts of Fedora. Do you contribute directly
to the Fedora project? If yes, then I would rethink this and complain about
this situation to Red Hat. They can't do anything on this matter directly
though. But maybe someday in the future there will be enough "Red Hat"
companies in the US that recognize that the US way of approaching
"problematic" countries like Iran hurts vital US business interests. There
always has to be a lobby if you want laws to change. Better make it a lobby
with money too.
Back to your situation: take Debian for example. If you ever downloaded a set
of Debian CDs then you'll have noticed that there exists a US version and a
non-US version. The US version lacks crypto stuff and patented parts that can
be distributed freely elsewhere in the world. That is due to the same export
restrictions (and patent issues of course). US legislation is harming Open
Source. If you want to change that you have to set an example. Complain. Do
you blog? No? Then just copy this thread and publish it in some blog. I was
rather intrigued by your problem. State that you cannot directly contribute
to Fedora due to export restrictions. Contribute to some other
distribution/project outside of the US. We all know code will eventually
spread evenly around the different projects because that's the nature of our
development model. But make a point.
regards,
Tobias W.
2:09 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 01:37, Tobias Weisserth wrote:
It's not a matter of licenses or EULAs. It's a matter of US
export
regulations.
It *is* a matter of licenses or EULAs in this case, because the
restriction is written into the EULA.
The restrictions are required by US law. If you download Fedora from
any
mirror outside the US then these restrictions do not apply as long as these
other download locations are not affected by likewise regulations.
Since it's in the EULA, it doesn't matter where he downloads it from.
The EULA also has that "will not export, re-export, or transfer the
Software to any prohibited destination" bit that would apply to mirrors
outside the US.
4:44 p.m.
Hi,
On Wednesday, 22. September 2004 21:09, Brian Mury wrote:
On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 01:37, Tobias Weisserth wrote:
> It's not a matter of licenses or EULAs. It's a matter of US export
> regulations.
It *is* a matter of licenses or EULAs in this case, because the
restriction is written into the EULA.
The thing is, as the original message already pointed out, a distribution's
EULA can never overrule the licenses from the individual packages that are
part of the distribution.
I don't know if there are any packages inside Fedora core that are not
licensed under some Open Source license. Any Open Source license mustn't
restrict use/export regionally BY DEFINITION as you can see for yourself at
www.opensource.org. Free Software as in "GNU Free" is even more explicit. So,
any export restriction in a EULA for a 100% Open Source distribution is a
conflict in itself.
> The restrictions are required by US law. If you download Fedora
from any
> mirror outside the US then these restrictions do not apply as long as
> these other download locations are not affected by likewise regulations.
Since it's in the EULA, it doesn't matter where he downloads it from.
Yes it does. Not every EULA is valid in every country by default. Microsofts
EULA for example is (has been?) partly invalid/illegal in Germany due to
consumer protection by German law.
The EULA also has that "will not export, re-export, or transfer
the
Software to any prohibited destination" bit that would apply to mirrors
outside the US.
The question is whether this isn't in conflict with existing laws in these
mirror countries.
Nonetheless, it is a silly and ridiculous situation. I guess nobody will
object that these export restrictions in the EULA originate from US
regulations that are somehow neither enforceable nor justified.
Where I in his situation I'd phrase my objection to such regulations in a
clear fashion and turn my back on US originating goods and carry the fruit of
my creative work to producers outside of the US. If enough people will act
like his then there's a chance that the administration realizes its laws hurt
the wrong side. But that's just my humble opinion.
regards,
Tobias
11:30 a.m.
There are a number of sticky issues with this post.
1) It is illegal for RH to deliver by any means any software to Iran.
2) Using most legal systems, a license is a contract, so you are bound
by the terms
of the license if you use the product.
3) It is illegal for Intel to supply the processor for your computer to
Iran.
All computer software and hardware manufacturers in the USA are bound by
the export regulations of the ATF {Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ...}. I
don't
know why, the ATF regulates software, but they do.
I would suggest you use some European distribution.
Besides the CIA has likely already read these posts, and are
infiltrating your
community as we speak, so you may want to dig a hole and bury your
computer,
software and all other stuff you don't want them to find. Since I have
the name
of your country in my post, they are likely investigating me now as
well, so I'm
off to buy a shovel :-)
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use
Fedora
Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright
co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the
name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located
in Iran":
http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2.91/x86_64/os/eu...
But the problem is that I live there, and have been living there while
working on all those pieces of software
Is Fedora allowed to do that, even when I have copylefted parts of the
software under GPL and LGPL? Won't that be adding more restrictions, and
against the explicit text in the licenses that says "You may not impose
any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
granted herein"? Also, isn't the same EULA claim that the whole
collective work is under GPL? If yes, how can it add those restrictions?
I would appreciate any kind of comment or recommendations, on-list or
off-list. This has somehow created a mental problem for me...
Roozbeh Pournader
--
Guy
7142
days inactive
7155
days old
20 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Brian Mury -
ByteEnable -
Guy Fraser -
John Thompson -
Kyle Maxwell -
Michael Jezierski - Systec Conveyors -
Pasha R -
Patrick McSwiggen -
Peter Boy -
Roozbeh Pournader -
Sam Tregar -
Tobias Weisserth -
Tom Mitchell