FYI: Plan9 open sourced

[Bakul Shah]

> > >I don't think section seven (export control) should appear in a truly free
> > >licence.
> >
> > Why not? It's just a specific instance of the general disclaimer of
> > liability found in many licenses, including the BSD and MIT licenses.
> 
> Because without it, a random person outside the US receiving it would
> technicaly (ignoring cruise missle diplomacy) not be bound by US export
> regulations. By using code under this licence, it is no longer (as far as
> that and derived code is concerned) no longer the case.

With or without clause 7, if you are in the US, you _are_
bound by its laws including export control regulations.  If
you are living outside the US, you are _NOT_ bound by US
laws.  The plan 9 lawyers are simply making this explicit.

If from US you shipped a FreeBSD CD with some prohibited bits
to North Korea you are in the same trouble regradless of what
the FreeBSD license says.  Basically all free software (or
may be all software) originating in the US is in the same
boat.  The way I heard it, shipping bits without any crypto
(so that cryto bits can be added later) can also run afoul of
the law.  If true that is truly frightening:-(  The irony is
that these laws hurt people in the US more than anyone else.

Nevertheless, if the license is the *only* reason you are not
using plan 9 and you want to influence the license it makes a
lot more sense to discuss it with the plan 9 people rather
than here.  I do think plan 9 has a lot of very useful things
that can benefit *BSDs and think that the license is open
enough to start using them -- the only reason I brought this
up in the first place.