I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located in Iran":
http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2.91/x86_64/os/eula....
But the problem is that I live there, and have been living there while working on all those pieces of software
Is Fedora allowed to do that, even when I have copylefted parts of the software under GPL and LGPL? Won't that be adding more restrictions, and against the explicit text in the licenses that says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"? Also, isn't the same EULA claim that the whole collective work is under GPL? If yes, how can it add those restrictions?
I would appreciate any kind of comment or recommendations, on-list or off-list. This has somehow created a mental problem for me...
Roozbeh Pournader
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located in Iran":
Odd isn't it. Something you created, you cannot use because of longstanding feud between your country and the US.
http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2.91/x86_64/os/eula....
But the problem is that I live there, and have been living there while working on all those pieces of software
However the trade sanctions between the USA (where this agreement was created) and the named countries (Iraq, Iran, Cuba, etc.) is quite clear. At first I thought this was the standard "128 bit encryption" that the US Government doesn't want in "unfriendly" hands. But the wording tells me that this applies to the whole software. As long as Fedora as a whole is a product of USA origins, then I'm afraid that you won't be able to "legally" use the software. Then again I think most computer software of USA based companies falls into that prohibition, including Micro$not.
I would appreciate any kind of comment or recommendations, on-list or off-list. This has somehow created a mental problem for me...
Roozbeh Pournader
Ooo. Ick. [Standard disclaimer: IANAL] Yes Red Hat is pretty much REQUIRED to restrict distribution of this software to the nations on the list. There is a clause that with a proper permit and government clearances and a guarantee that this software won't be used to make or control WMD's ... that could be your only legal option.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:26:49 -0500, Michael Jezierski - Systec Conveyors mjezierski@systecconveyors.com wrote:
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located in Iran":
However the trade sanctions between the USA (where this agreement was created) and the named countries (Iraq, Iran, Cuba, etc.) is quite clear. At first I thought this was the standard "128 bit encryption" that the US Government doesn't want in "unfriendly" hands. But the wording tells me that this applies to the whole software. As long as Fedora as a whole is a product of USA origins, then I'm afraid that you won't be able to "legally" use the software. Then again I think most computer software of USA based companies falls into that prohibition, including Micro$not.
I'm not a lawyer either, but given the trade sanctions, I wonder if Fedora can even redistribute code that came from Iran? This is definitely a sticky wicket and an interesting case for Lessig's "code == law" mantra. Not that's it's *technically* difficult for the OP to get around, but the ethical concerns he raises are something that Red Hat should definitely attempt to address. Given their history of attempting to support the Free Software and Open Source ethoses (sp?), I'd think they would work hard to do the Right Thing, which is probably legal assistance to acquire the proper permit and so forth.
Then again, this could end up being a case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 21:10, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located in Iran":
http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2.91/x86_64/os/eula....
But the problem is that I live there, and have been living there while working on all those pieces of software
Is Fedora allowed to do that, even when I have copylefted parts of the software under GPL and LGPL? Won't that be adding more restrictions, and against the explicit text in the licenses that says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"? Also, isn't the same EULA claim that the whole collective work is under GPL? If yes, how can it add those restrictions?
IANAL, but I don't think GPL is applicalble to your case. GPL requires no additional restrictions on distributed software, but since RedHat does not "distribute" software to you GPL this requirement does not apply.
I would appreciate any kind of comment or recommendations, on-list or off-list. This has somehow created a mental problem for me...
This situation is quite absurd, but RedHat has to play by the rules - even if this requires to write completely unenforceable EULA. The only recommendation I could give is to use any European distro.
Roozbeh Pournader
Pavel.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located in Iran":
Does Iran recognize US copyright law? If not I think you can probably do whatever you want with Fedora and still be on the right side of the only law that presently applies to you!
-sam
Sam Tregar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located in Iran":
Does Iran recognize US copyright law? If not I think you can probably do whatever you want with Fedora and still be on the right side of the only law that presently applies to you!
-sam
Red Hat is a US based company though. Knowingly sending software to a nation under a trade sanction is illegal, not for our Iranian colleague but for Red Hat. Just like trying to find an American car in Cuba made after 1959.
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 22:06, Sam Tregar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located in Iran":
Does Iran recognize US copyright law? If not I think you can probably do whatever you want with Fedora and still be on the right side of the only law that presently applies to you!
I don't think US copyright law has anything to do with the matter. EULA is a sort of contract, so by agreeing to it, Roozbeh can't use fedora legally.
-sam
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Michael Jezierski - Systec Conveyors wrote:
Does Iran recognize US copyright law? If not I think you can probably do whatever you want with Fedora and still be on the right side of the only law that presently applies to you!
Red Hat is a US based company though. Knowingly sending software to a nation under a trade sanction is illegal, not for our Iranian colleague but for Red Hat. Just like trying to find an American car in Cuba made after 1959.
That may be true, but it has nothing to do with the legality of using the software in Iran. Obviously that issue is covered by Iranian law, not US law!
-sam
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Pasha wrote:
I don't think US copyright law has anything to do with the matter. EULA is a sort of contract, so by agreeing to it, Roozbeh can't use fedora legally.
That's only true if Iranian law recognizes the EULA, which I imagine would have something to do with recognition of US copyright law. Maybe the two are completely separate. I'm not an Iranian lawyer so I can't say for certain.
My point is that this question can't be answered based on the GPL or any other contract based on US copyright law. These documents most likely have no legal force in Iran. What's legal for Roozbeh is defined entirely by the Iranian legal system.
-sam
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 22:28, Sam Tregar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Pasha wrote:
I don't think US copyright law has anything to do with the matter. EULA is a sort of contract, so by agreeing to it, Roozbeh can't use fedora legally.
That's only true if Iranian law recognizes the EULA, which I imagine would have something to do with recognition of US copyright law. Maybe the two are completely separate. I'm not an Iranian lawyer so I can't say for certain.
You are probably right - only Iranian contract law defines whether the EULA is valid in Iran. Still, I don't think recognition of US copyright law has anything to do with it. But I'm neither Iranian nor American lawyer (and neither Iranian nor American at all :)
My point is that this question can't be answered based on the GPL or any other contract based on US copyright law. These documents most likely have no legal force in Iran. What's legal for Roozbeh is defined entirely by the Iranian legal system.
-sam
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located in Iran":
http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2.91/x86_64/os/eula....
But the problem is that I live there, and have been living there while working on all those pieces of software
Is Fedora allowed to do that, even when I have copylefted parts of the software under GPL and LGPL? Won't that be adding more restrictions, and against the explicit text in the licenses that says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"? Also, isn't the same EULA claim that the whole collective work is under GPL? If yes, how can it add those restrictions?
I would appreciate any kind of comment or recommendations, on-list or off-list. This has somehow created a mental problem for me...
Roozbeh Pournader
I just talked to President Bush, and he said that if you dismantle your nuclear reactor and stop disrupting democracy in Iraq, that he will let you use Fedora Core without restriction.
Seriously, this export restriction only applies to Red Hat. The U.S. law does not apply to you, unless Iran recongizes U.S. export restrictions and applies the restriction to you, which I highly doubt. If you download Fedora Core from a mirror outside the U.S., you avoid any potential conflicts.
I believe only Red Hat can be held accountable, especially if the U.S. government finds out that Fedora Core's name is a code word for Nuclear Core, in which Fedora Core runs your new reactor. Just kidding.
Isn't it a shame that the world cannot just put down the guns, theology, ideology, politics and just write code. It would be a better place.
Pasha has just pointed out that EULA might state that you cannot use Fedora Core if your on the export list, if the EULA says that, then according to Red Hat, you are an illegal user in their eyes.
Byte
Sam Tregar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Michael Jezierski - Systec Conveyors wrote:
Does Iran recognize US copyright law? If not I think you can probably do whatever you want with Fedora and still be on the right side of the only law that presently applies to you!
Red Hat is a US based company though. Knowingly sending software to a nation under a trade sanction is illegal, not for our Iranian colleague but for Red Hat. Just like trying to find an American car in Cuba made after 1959.
That may be true, but it has nothing to do with the legality of using the software in Iran. Obviously that issue is covered by Iranian law, not US law!
-sam
My point is - it's not illegal for OP to *use* the software. It's illegal for Red Hat to distribute it to nations which the USA has a trade embargo against. How can OP *use* the software if it's illegal under USA law for it to be distributed to him, since it is technically an work of USA origins? There's the billion Zloty question.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004, Michael Jezierski - Systec Conveyors wrote:
My point is - it's not illegal for OP to *use* the software. It's illegal for Red Hat to distribute it to nations which the USA has a trade embargo against.
That sounds right.
How can OP *use* the software if it's illegal under USA law for it to be distributed to him, since it is technically an work of USA origins? There's the billion Zloty question.
That's easy. He isn't covered by US law, so of course US law has no effect on the legality of his actions. Just because something is of US origin doesn't give its license the force of law in a foreign legal system. Only the laws of Iran can give it that force. Since I'm not an Iranian lawyer I can only guess that he can do whatever he wants with Fedora.
Consider the possibility that I might possess something exported illegally from Iran, for example Iranian pornography. Now, just because that material was illegal to create and export in Iran doesn't mean it's illegal for me to possess it in the US. That's because I'm subject to US law not Iranian law. It seems that the issue is roughly the same with the poster and Fedora.
-sam
On Sep 21, 2004, at 3:55 PM, Sam Tregar wrote:
That's easy. He isn't covered by US law, so of course US law has no effect on the legality of his actions. Just because something is of US origin doesn't give its license the force of law in a foreign legal system. Only the laws of Iran can give it that force. Since I'm not an Iranian lawyer I can only guess that he can do whatever he wants with Fedora.
I hate to rain on everybody's parade, but remember Manuel Noriega? Former dictator of Panama arrested (in Panama) for drug trafficking under US law even though he never set foot on US soil? (Except, of course, when he was invited by US presidents!) The US has a long standing habit of enforcing its laws *outside* its borders. I am no lawyer, but if the US got in enough of a dander over the export of something from the US to another country it would most definitely go after *both* ends of the export/import pipe--and they wouldn't care about any EULA/contract or anything else between the two parties. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that you actually pay attention to such silliness!
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located in Iran":
http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2.91/x86_64/os/eula....
But the problem is that I live there, and have been living there while working on all those pieces of software
Is Fedora allowed to do that, even when I have copylefted parts of the software under GPL and LGPL? Won't that be adding more restrictions, and against the explicit text in the licenses that says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"? Also, isn't the same EULA claim that the whole collective work is under GPL? If yes, how can it add those restrictions?
I don't think that it is the Fedora project that add those restrictions, but rather the US government. Duke Univ. probably feels they have to "cover their butts" by making you jump through that hoop.
Isn't there a non-USA mirror you could download from?
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 09:40:04PM +0330, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora Core legally.
Get an import license .... for your one or two copies.
....
name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located in Iran":
...
I would appreciate any kind of comment or recommendations, on-list or off-list. This has somehow created a mental problem for me...
The collection of software that is Fedora contains strong encryption software in many places including the web browser.
Just as one closed source module can 'taint' the kernel one restricted technology will 'taint' the collection that is Fedora and limit the distribution.
Distribution of strong encryption technology (and I suspect other technology in Fedora too) by any US company, person, or other legal entity to a list of nations including Iran is restricted by US law.
There is more involved here than GPL and copyright.
http://www.bxa.doc.gov/encryption/regs.htm http://www.bxa.doc.gov/policiesandregulations/regionalconsiderations.htm http://www.bxa.doc.gov/policiesandregulations/RegionalConsiderations/Iran.pd... and more...
As others pointed out GPL mandates that source follow distribution but does not mandate distribution.
Work on unrestricted distributions for now.
Pray for sanity in the world.
Hi Roozbeh,
On Tuesday, 21. September 2004 20:10, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located in Iran":
http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2.91/x86_64/os/eula .txt
But the problem is that I live there, and have been living there while working on all those pieces of software
The restrictions are required by US law. If you download Fedora from any mirror outside the US then these restrictions do not apply as long as these other download locations are not affected by likewise regulations.
It's perfectly legal **for you** to download Fedora from any mirror outside of the US without these restrictions.
Is Fedora allowed to do that, even when I have copylefted parts of the software under GPL and LGPL? Won't that be adding more restrictions, and against the explicit text in the licenses that says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"? Also, isn't the same EULA claim that the whole collective work is under GPL? If yes, how can it add those restrictions?
It's not a matter of licenses or EULAs. It's a matter of US export regulations. And those apply to all exported goods, no matter under what conditions they are usually distributed. Common, binding law always beats the specifics of an individual license agreement.
I would appreciate any kind of comment or recommendations, on-list or off-list. This has somehow created a mental problem for me...
Without any further discussion, everybody with a sane mind knows these export restrictions on Fedora and its encryption elements are plain ridiculous. But if the US wants to play the game like that then you have to adapt. You said you were the copyright holder on parts of Fedora. Do you contribute directly to the Fedora project? If yes, then I would rethink this and complain about this situation to Red Hat. They can't do anything on this matter directly though. But maybe someday in the future there will be enough "Red Hat" companies in the US that recognize that the US way of approaching "problematic" countries like Iran hurts vital US business interests. There always has to be a lobby if you want laws to change. Better make it a lobby with money too.
Back to your situation: take Debian for example. If you ever downloaded a set of Debian CDs then you'll have noticed that there exists a US version and a non-US version. The US version lacks crypto stuff and patented parts that can be distributed freely elsewhere in the world. That is due to the same export restrictions (and patent issues of course). US legislation is harming Open Source. If you want to change that you have to set an example. Complain. Do you blog? No? Then just copy this thread and publish it in some blog. I was rather intrigued by your problem. State that you cannot directly contribute to Fedora due to export restrictions. Contribute to some other distribution/project outside of the US. We all know code will eventually spread evenly around the different projects because that's the nature of our development model. But make a point.
regards, Tobias W.
On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 01:37, Tobias Weisserth wrote:
It's not a matter of licenses or EULAs. It's a matter of US export regulations.
It *is* a matter of licenses or EULAs in this case, because the restriction is written into the EULA.
The restrictions are required by US law. If you download Fedora from any mirror outside the US then these restrictions do not apply as long as these other download locations are not affected by likewise regulations.
Since it's in the EULA, it doesn't matter where he downloads it from.
The EULA also has that "will not export, re-export, or transfer the Software to any prohibited destination" bit that would apply to mirrors outside the US.
Hi,
On Wednesday, 22. September 2004 21:09, Brian Mury wrote:
On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 01:37, Tobias Weisserth wrote:
It's not a matter of licenses or EULAs. It's a matter of US export regulations.
It *is* a matter of licenses or EULAs in this case, because the restriction is written into the EULA.
The thing is, as the original message already pointed out, a distribution's EULA can never overrule the licenses from the individual packages that are part of the distribution.
I don't know if there are any packages inside Fedora core that are not licensed under some Open Source license. Any Open Source license mustn't restrict use/export regionally BY DEFINITION as you can see for yourself at www.opensource.org. Free Software as in "GNU Free" is even more explicit. So, any export restriction in a EULA for a 100% Open Source distribution is a conflict in itself.
The restrictions are required by US law. If you download Fedora from any mirror outside the US then these restrictions do not apply as long as these other download locations are not affected by likewise regulations.
Since it's in the EULA, it doesn't matter where he downloads it from.
Yes it does. Not every EULA is valid in every country by default. Microsofts EULA for example is (has been?) partly invalid/illegal in Germany due to consumer protection by German law.
The EULA also has that "will not export, re-export, or transfer the Software to any prohibited destination" bit that would apply to mirrors outside the US.
The question is whether this isn't in conflict with existing laws in these mirror countries.
Nonetheless, it is a silly and ridiculous situation. I guess nobody will object that these export restrictions in the EULA originate from US regulations that are somehow neither enforceable nor justified.
Where I in his situation I'd phrase my objection to such regulations in a clear fashion and turn my back on US originating goods and carry the fruit of my creative work to producers outside of the US. If enough people will act like his then there's a chance that the administration realizes its laws hurt the wrong side. But that's just my humble opinion.
regards, Tobias
There are a number of sticky issues with this post.
1) It is illegal for RH to deliver by any means any software to Iran. 2) Using most legal systems, a license is a contract, so you are bound by the terms of the license if you use the product. 3) It is illegal for Intel to supply the processor for your computer to Iran.
All computer software and hardware manufacturers in the USA are bound by the export regulations of the ATF {Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ...}. I don't know why, the ATF regulates software, but they do.
I would suggest you use some European distribution.
Besides the CIA has likely already read these posts, and are infiltrating your community as we speak, so you may want to dig a hole and bury your computer, software and all other stuff you don't want them to find. Since I have the name of your country in my post, they are likely investigating me now as well, so I'm off to buy a shovel :-)
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I was wondering if I can do anything about not being able to use Fedora Core legally. To use software that is partly my own (I am a copyright co-holder for Mozilla, FriBidi, GNOME translations (sometimes under the name "FarsiWeb", Pango, etc), I need to "warrant that I am not located in Iran":
http://mirror.linux.duke.edu/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/2.91/x86_64/os/eula....
But the problem is that I live there, and have been living there while working on all those pieces of software
Is Fedora allowed to do that, even when I have copylefted parts of the software under GPL and LGPL? Won't that be adding more restrictions, and against the explicit text in the licenses that says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"? Also, isn't the same EULA claim that the whole collective work is under GPL? If yes, how can it add those restrictions?
I would appreciate any kind of comment or recommendations, on-list or off-list. This has somehow created a mental problem for me...
Roozbeh Pournader
-
Brian Mury -
ByteEnable -
Guy Fraser -
John Thompson -
Kyle Maxwell -
Michael Jezierski - Systec Conveyors -
Pasha R -
Patrick McSwiggen -
Peter Boy -
Roozbeh Pournader -
Sam Tregar -
Tobias Weisserth -
Tom Mitchell