>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
Anthony> On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 08:38:37PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Oh, in case you are wondering, I shall formally object to any
>> such scheme to pull any more software off master that we are not
>> constrained to do because of silly parochial laws of the locale master
>> is hosted in.
Anthony> Sure, that makes sense.
Anthony> Would you also object to adding a header to the Packages files
something
Anthony> like:
Anthony> Package: xine-decss
Anthony> Section: non-US/utils
Anthony> Distribution-Hint: non-US, non-UK
Anthony> Package: doom
Anthony> Section: games
Anthony> Distribution-Hint: non-DE
Anthony> ? If so, on what grounds, and why don't they equally apply to the
Anthony> "Section: non-US" header?
On the grounds that we have to track all the laws in these
countries, and that we are now making a determination whether the
software is legal to distribute in multiple countries, as opposed to
one: the country master lives in.
We can probably keep up to date with the laws of two
countries: the place where master lives, and the place where
non-master lives (non-{country where master physically resides}). Add
the 150+ countries that that proposal opens up, and we can never be
sure of keeping up to date. And somewhere, the fact we assert
something is legal (or illegal) shall land us into hot water for
making and incorrect, or outdated, statement. A statement that is of
dubious value to our users in the first place, unless we hire
batteries of lawyers in every country for all these packages. The
utility is further reduced unless we can provide similar statements
for the whole distribution (BTW, is a package showing a woman with
her face uncovered legal in all countries? Which countries is it not
legal in?)
The non-US header does not mean it is not OK to distribute in
the US necessarily. It means it can't be exported out of the US. We
are not saying it is OK to use anywhere else, or that it is not OK to
use in the US.
It is by no means legal advice. I always could, under US laws,
download non-patented crypto into the US, and sell it to another US
citizen; so non-US did not mean not OK to use in the US
(non-US/non-free fitted that better).
We make two determinations:
a) if the package meets the DFSG
b) Whether it is OK to put it on master.
Indeed, we would not like to do this either, but we have to
only put on master software that is legal in the country master lives
in. And then we find another country where those packages are legal
to distribute, and we are done.
You are proposing we try and see if things are legal in,
say. Latvia. And that we track the laws of multiple countries. And
that, somehow, the packager is not liable for any mistakes. I am not
convinced of the latter.
I say we do what we have to, and not get into the business of
interpreting local laws and licenses and international copyright law
and patent laws and treaties. This is a slippery slope we do *not have*
to descend. I repeat: we only have non-US since master lives in US,
and we must obey US laws for master while master is here. How up are
you on the laws of Bhutan, if I may ask?
The US is not getting preferential treatment here, and we are
not just dispensing legal advice for the fun of it.
I would formally object to any such proposal, yes, on these
grounds (I would hate to be deported). And none of my packages are
ever going to sport such a tag (at least while the INS may deport me).
manoj
--
It is not well to be thought of as one who meekly submits to
insolence and intimidation.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
