Re: Secure Drive 1.0 is here!

[Nathan Loofbourrow <loofbour@cis.ohio-state.edu>]

Al Billings writes:
 > On Mon, 22 Nov 1993, kpj@sics.se wrote:
 > > Naturally.  I expect him to refuse.  My whole question is whether it is
 > > valid to use Copyleft on code which is not freely copyable over national
 > > boundaries.
 > 
 > It is not his fault that he can't give it to you. He's made it freely 
 > available. If national boundaries interfere and paranoid US laws don't 
 > let him, I don't think you can blame HIM for that.

IMHO, the relevant section of the GPL, version 2 -- assuming that this
is the version of the license Mike Ingle intends -- is as follows:

 >   7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
 > infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
 > conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
 > otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
 > excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot
 > distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
 > License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
 > may not distribute the Program at all.  For example, if a patent
 > license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
 > all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
 > the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
 > refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

The interpretation(s) are left to the cypherpunk esquires.

nathan