On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 01:27:49AM +0000, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 20:14 -0500, Stephen Harris wrote:
>
> > If the software was
> > subject to EAR then it was subject to it regardless of a web page
> > stating it.
>
> [EAR = USA's Export Administration Regulations]
>
> How would a mere downloader from a mirror, or a purchaser of a Centos
> disk or even a beneficiary of a free Centos disk at a Centos event
> beware of USA law restrictions and understand the full legal
> implications of USA law ?
You're missing the point.
This is not RedHat causing "[t]he compulsory imposition of USA law on
all Centos downloaders" (your words); that imposition _already existed_
regardless of a web page telling you. The difference, now is that
you're told about it (presumably standard RedHat legal boiler template
'cos RH lawyers believe it adds some protection to _them_ - and thus
the CentOS board - by having it there).
The legal situation for downloaders _has not changed_ by the presence
of that section on the web site (and the page has even less importance
considering you can download the DVDs without even having to see that
page; it's not an agreement you sign or click through).
> Its reminiscent of the PGP farce from nearly 20? years ago.
It's the same farce.
--
rgds
Stephen
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
