1996-07-20 - Re: US versions of Netscape now available

Header Data

From: “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
To: paquin@netscape.com
Message Hash: 8be18b6279cf01e6ebbfa206b0d3ce0904a74cba9fec3e6685144a8839540d43
Message ID: <01I7AI5ZK7EI9EDBUO@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-07-20 17:57:25 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 01:57:25 +0800

Raw message

From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 01:57:25 +0800
To: paquin@netscape.com
Subject: Re: US versions of Netscape now available
Message-ID: <01I7AI5ZK7EI9EDBUO@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"paquin@netscape.com" 20-JUL-1996 09:00:37.83

>Alex de Joode wrote:

>> I would like to know what Netscape's position on the above mentioned
>> scenario is .. (Uploading "possibly" received 128 bit binaries to
>> official netscape mirrors outside the US, that is) (guess why ...)

>I guess I should look again, but I *thought* our licenses explicitly
>excepted use of "US-Only" software (defined in the license) from the
>standard exclusions.  I think the attys lifted some of the definitions
>straight from ITAR and may have quoted 22USC.  Maybe we screwed
>up and got the wrong license in the beta and missed the check.
>I don't know.  I'll look.  *sigh*

	BTW, is the license essentially copyright-based? If so, you're going
to have trouble using it in a country that you can't legally sell/give away
with limits the stuff to; it is assumed that you aren't losing anything. I
may be wrong, of course, but that's my understanding of how penalties, etcetera
are determined under copyright law.
	-Allen





Thread