Re: LYNX-DEV dodging the gun

[David Woolley]

> with the GPL for Americans, who might have to be careful not to distribute
> versions compiled with SSL. For people outside the US there's no problem.

They couldn't even use a version that was legal to distribute outside the
USA, unless that version was non-commercial use only.  Generally the non
US versions of these things are built with the SSLeay (the Australian)
implementation of RSA, which is legal to use, from an intellectual property
rights point of view, in every country EXCEPT the USA.  An RSAREF version
built outside the USA would be legal for non-commercial use (ignoring
GPL issues) in the USA, but international copyright law would prevent
any commercial use globally.

Re the GPL, I have no objection to the copyright holders issuing an
alternative licence that allowed one to derive a work which could not
be distributed to the USA.  However, they would have to understand that
they might annoy the US authorities and that they would not have
access to the resulting code.  (Actually my objections don't matter;
all that is needed is that the copyright owners agree, or the code of
the dissenters is removed. They can then write any licence they like,
in place of or in parallel with the GPL.)

They could also reach agreement on an alternative licence that allowed
the creation of non-commercial use only derivative products and non-exportable
derivative products.

I'd therefore suggest that anyone believing a distributable version of SSL 
Lynx is desirable should not look for GPL loopholes, but should start tracing
the copyright owners and getting their permissions for a licence that 
unambiguously does permit their intended usage.

Incidentally, it is my understanding that earlier versions of Lynx SSL have
been built outside of the USA, although it is contentious as to whether these
are legal; as they won't use RSAREF, they can't legally be used in the USA.