Ned Konz <ned at bike-nomad.com> said:
>After all, if you're a US citizen, you're already bound by whatever=20
>export restrictions are the law in your country. And if you're not,=20
>well, then you're not.
>
Well, you are, because you have accepted the SqueakL in that case. So
what Apple is doing is in effect restricting the redistribution of Squeak
in some misguided attempt to comply with US regulations *beyond* what
would be applicable to a US citizen. And that's what makes it non-OSD
compliant (it's in the OSD and even includes a suggested alternative
wording, which would be that the license indicates that there may be
laws applicable to you that restrict your rights to redistribute).

>What place do these have in a software license?
>
Well, a license falls under contract law I think so both parties are assumed
to have total freedom to put any stupid clause they like into the license. If
the license would say that you need to stand on your head while the VM starts
up, you can choose to accept that or look for some other piece of software.

But they don't have a place in a license that aims to be open source :-)

>Does my exporting the software to the "bad guys" affect Apple in any=20
>way, with or without the license mentioning the export regulations?
>
No. In fact, it would probably be good to have the "bad guys" fooling
around with Etoys, so that they have less time to plan "bad things"
(without going into politics here, I *am* indicating that I will take
the freedom to dissent with the US government's definition of "bad")


-- 
Cees de Groot               http://www.cdegroot.com     <cg at cdegroot.com>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD  1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B