cvs commit: src/bin/ed Makefile src/gnu/usr.bin/cvs/cvs Makefile src/kerberos5 Makefile.inc src/lib/libfetch Makefile Makefile src/lib/libpam/modules/pam_ksu Makefile ...

Paul Richards paul at originative.co.uk
Sat Aug 7 07:04:15 PDT 2004


On Sat, 2004-08-07 at 10:02, Mark Murray wrote:
> Paul Richards writes:
> > On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 23:00, Mark Murray wrote: 
> > > Paul Richards writes:
> > > > It doesn't however follow that FreeBSD is always exempt from export
> > > > controls because it might not be if your exporting it as a product, even
> > > > if that product is just FreeBSD on a CD.
> > > 
> > > This is just plain incorrect. If it is Open Source, it is exportable.
> > 
> > Do you have a reference for that assumption?
> 
> Not offhand, but our company lawyers OKed it.

I'm only reporting what I was told by a UK FreeBSD user who was
investigating whether they needed an export license for their FreeBSD
based product and they thought I'd be interesed in knowing that it was
still a grey area.

For their product the fact that FreeBSD was bundled into an embedded
product meant that it was not considered to be an open source product
and therefore possibly needed an export license.

If your company lawyers OKd your product then obviously it was ok, this
other company may subsequently find out their product is ok as well.
However, I think it would be dangerous to assume that a product based on
FreeBSD is automatically except.

My subsequent reading of the DTI documents confirmed that while open
source software is exempt, cryptography per se is not. Therefore, if
your product contains cryptography then it has to satisfy certain
criteria in order to be exempt. One of those criteria is that it is in
the public domain which is why FreeBSD is ok, but an aggregated product
might not be.



More information about the cvs-src mailing list