LYNX-DEV ender: address@hidden

[David Woolley]

> 
> If distributing a binary of Lynx with SSL added is illegal, why are there 
> links from the Lynx web site to web URLs where you can download SSL 
> enabled Lynx precompiled?  One points to shadow.cabi.net, where you can 
> ftp a compiled SSL lynx 2.7 created by Alan Cox.

Alan Cox, is I believe in the UK, so he is not constrained by the RSA
patents.  This means that he could create a pure SSLeay based build of
Lynx.  I'm still not sure whether he could legally distribute this, but
it is possibly a grey area, providing he includes a not distributable in
the USA clause (personally I would want a ruling from the Free Software
Foundation first - it is not clear whether one can create a derived work
which it is illegal to give to the original copyright owner!).

Assuming that he hasn't used RSAREF, the binary will be in breach of patents
in the USA.  If he has used RSAREF (I think there is a weakened export
version now) the software couldn't be used in the USA for commercial purposes
(patent violation) and presumably couldn't be used elsewhere for them 
(copyright violation on RSAREF).  There is a whole clause in the GPL which
basically says, if you can't distribute it such that commercial use is
permitted, royalty free, you can't distribute at all.

> 
> I was under the impression it was only illegal to spread source code, not 
> executable software.  Can someone clarify?
> 
There are two laws involved: US criminal law and US civil patent law.  Any
restriction on source code might fall under the former, but only if the
code used nobbled keys and explicit permission to export had been obtained
for the binaries; I think neither is likely.  The patent restriction probably
applies much more to the binaries than the source (patents on source only
wouldn't make sense, at least in the rest of the world, where disclosure is
a requirement for patents, but then we don't have software patents).

In any case, Lynx is GPLed.  The GPL requires that source be available on
demand - it is one of its most fundamental requirements.

Now it would be possible to get round the GPL issues by using a different
licence, but I think the copyright situation for Lynx is now so complicated
that it would be impossible to get all the necessary copyright clearences,
and some contributors might even refuse clearance, especially if they lived
outside of the USA.

Finally note that the availablility of software on a web site doesn't make
it legal.  The is a long tradition of illegal distribution on the internet.
However, any breach of the law involving free software, and in particular
GPLed software, is a serious threat to the free software movement, as it
gives the commercial software suppliers a means to attack it, either by
destroying key components, or by simply spreading fear that other software
might suddenly be found illegal.