Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping
export-restricted software in the core
rfarmer at predatorlabs.net
Thu Oct 7 03:25:50 UTC 2010
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 20:04, Michael Powell <nightrecon at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was under the impression that the most onerous of these export rules and
> restrictions applied to crypto technology. If this is so, what I don't quite
> grasp is what do crypto export restrictions have to do with acpi? Is acpi a
> copyrighted, patented, or trademark otherwise owned by some entity? Quite
> possibly so as it is in contrib. I just have no idea who might "own" it. Or
> how it would fall afoul of crypto export restrictions.
> Looking forward to enlightenment. :-)
I'm not a lawyer either, so take all this with a grain of salt.
Basically, there are two reasons the US will block an export, which
you can read about at:
1) The export is considered "dangerous" for one reason or another, and
needs to be licensed so the government can keep track of who is
getting it and why they want it. Examples include military equipment,
nuclear equipment, controlled substances, firearms, etc. Crypto is
defined as a "munition" and is restricted for this reason. There are a
lot of opinions about whether this is "right", but it has held up in
2) The destination is "designated as supporting terrorist activities"
or is embargoed for political reasons (socialist/totalitarian
government - Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria). Most of the
people in these countries don't have access to a computer and the
rights to install whatever they want on it, so this is targeted at
As such, you are correct that for the vast majority of cases, the ACPI
code shouldn't have problems or need a license. The biggest legal risk
I can see is if ftp.freebsd.org and such allow people in the embargoed
countries to download code - I've seen a brief reference saying
Sourceforge was forced to IP ban these.
More information about the freebsd-questions