On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 08:31:32AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:54:24AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > This is a slightly different problem to that of a local law which says > >> > "you > >> > can't do that". I'm not distributing prohibited technology to an > >> > embargoed > >> > location by choice. I never thought "hmm, wouldn't it be cool if I sent > >> > this to Iran". Instead, the terms of the licence are forcing me to do > >> > that. > >> > >> Almost -- they force you to do that if you modify and distribute. So > >> you don't have freedom with respect to the software, because you can't > >> modify and distribute without the license urging you to potentially > >> break the law. > > > > So, what, vote with your feet, and leave the country which impose such > > ridicoulous constraint on you. No sympathy from me there. > > You'll be leaving France soon, then, since you can't download the > OCaml Cryptokit while there without violating encryption import > restrictions. Right?
Please don't bother writing to me again. Your previous posts have made it clear that you don't even bother reading here anything apart from the posts which interests you, and that you have no problem making half backed claims based on pure speculation. You have totally shot your credibility with posts as : http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01052.html So please go away and stop loosing everyones time. Friendly, Sven Luther
