On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:58:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:05:24PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:32:53PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > > [compelled unrelated distribution] > > > For DFSG 5: What about the group of people that is in countries that > > > impose an embargo or export restrictions on countries the "initial > > > developer" is in. > > > Consider something like a ssl-library was under this licence in the > > > times where those were more strictly handled and the "initial developer" > > > was outside the USA.
> > Ooh, good one. That still applies, even -- if there's QPL'd software > > written by an Iranian, the requirement to distribute anything back to the > > original author on request totally screws you. It's even worse, because you > > might reasonably think "well, the original author will never hear about my > > specially linked version, so it's OK", so you distribute to friends, who > > distribute to friends-of-friends, it gets back to the original author and he > > compels you by the terms of 6.c to distribute in contravention of the laws > > of your country. > Well, the fact that some national country has bullshit law (and this goes for > both the US and France in regard to crypto), is of no consequence to the > DFSG. No, just France. > Already the fact that we report the debian activity of every participants to > the US secret aganecies, as part of the crypto in main thingy, is dubious > enough. There are no secret agencies that we're reporting this activity to. The customs office is not a secret agency. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
