On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 11:42:09PM +0200, Matt Kraai wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:15:01PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: > > > The thread > > > > > > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00029.html > > > > > > documents the exact rationale for these sections. The following > > > patch incorporates its conclusions into the packages page. > > > > > > I'd appreciate it if the readers of debian-legal would > > > double-check it. > > > > What I saw in that thread was Wichert saying that things in non-US > > needed to be there because of patents, and Steve Langasek saying that > > that those things needed to be in non-US/non-free. That's not what I see > > below. > > I only found one reply from Steve Langasek at > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00032.html > > I interpret this as saying that cryptographic software that is > non-free cannot move to a server in the US because it does not > fall under the same BXA exemptions that allow us to export free > cryptographic software. I didn't see anything in his message > regarding patents.
He did not mention anything specifically regarding patents, but he did mention non-US/non-free quite prominently: I have seen no official endorsement given of merging non-US/non-free into the principal Debian mirror network. But the software is still non-free. It didn't suddenly become free and eligible for non-US/main. > > > - <dt><em>Non-US/Main</em> and <em>Non-US/Non-Free</em></dt> > > > - <dd>These packages cannot be exported from the USA, they are mostly > > > - encryption software packages, or software that is encumbered by > > > - patent issues. Most of them are free, but some are non-free.</dd> > > > + <dt><em>Non-US/Main</em></em></dt> > > > + <dd>Packages in this area are free themselves but cannot be > > > + stored on a server in the USA because they are encumbered by > > > + patent issues.</dd> > > > > Things in main or non-US/main should not be patent encumbered. > > non-US/main is designed so that packages can be imported into the US, > > but not exported. If it would not fit the DFSG for any reason, including > > being patent-encumbered in the US or other places, then it does not > > belong in non-US/main. > > What belongs in non-US/main? Only software left over from the > crypto-in-main transition? As I said before: any software which is legal to use in the US, legal to import into the US, but illegal or restricted to export from the US. Remnants of crypto-in-main might be a good idea. I can't possibly imagine every situation in which non-US/main might be useful, just like I can't imagine every inconsistent license (and trust me, there's a lot of them) that passes through this mailing list. I am confident, though, that it will be useful. > [snip] > > > > One final nitpick: please properly capitalize "non-US", "non-free", and > > "main". > > I was being consistent with the titles of the other sections as > listed on that page. I understand that. I just disagree with the way it was done, and wanted to throw out another point of view. If you don't like it, don't change it. -- Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7 "Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all." --Douglas Adams
pgpaQKuXsc5Ln.pgp
Description: PGP signature
