Bug#200411: www.debian.org: confusing description of non-US sections

[Matt Kraai]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:15:01PM +, 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.

> > -Non-US/Main and Non-US/Non-Free
> > -  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.
> > +Non-US/Main
> > +  Packages in this area are free themselves but cannot be
> > +  stored on a server in the USA because they are encumbered by
> > +  patent issues.
> 
> 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?

[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.

-- 
Matt Kraai  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Debian GNU/Linux

Bug#200471: DSA's not updated on websites (again)

[Gerfried Fuchs]

* Drew Scott Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-07-09 15:31]:
> It seems bugs 197926 and 200471 have reoccured.

 Like Matt said, that didn't happen (at least not the first bug).

> fwiw, http://www-master.debian.org/build-logs/webwml/wml_run.log says:

 Doesn't help, you should have rather looked into
 to
see that the files weren't simply not there.

 They are now, will be online in the short future.

* Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-07-09 14:09]:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 03:31:37PM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/debian-security-announce-2003/
>> shows DSA's 340 and 343 to 347 are the latest DSA'. DSA's 340 and343 to
>> 347 are listed at:
> 
> No, they aren't listed on www.d.o.  They'll be included there once
> the advisories are converted to web pages.

 Either person with webwml access has the posibility to do that. I'll
have an eye on it though, feel free if you don't like to do it yourself
and bug me if we are lagging behind again (I know, 349 is to be done ;).

 So long,
Alfie


pgpTm8XNF7cty.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#200411: www.debian.org: confusing description of non-US sections

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 11:42:09PM +0200, Matt Kraai wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:15:01PM +, 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.

Essentially correct.  To be precise, I think the BXA exemptions cover
software under a wider range of licenses than what we consider free;
however, trying to bring any non-free crypto software into the primary
mirror ring is not worth the risk, IMHO.

> > > -Non-US/Main and Non-US/Non-Free
> > > -  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.
> > > +Non-US/Main
> > > +  Packages in this area are free themselves but cannot be
> > > +  stored on a server in the USA because they are encumbered by
> > > +  patent issues.

> > 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?

There have, in practice, been packages relegated to non-US for purely
patent reasons.  Whether these packages warrant the classification of
non-US/main or non-US/non-free is a bit of a judgement call.  Since the
DFSG mainly talks about software licenses, I would question whether it's
appropriate to speak of patent-encumbered software as non-free when the
patent holder is not the author.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpEL8tlyq4pw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

remove me

[Dymple003]

floppy install instructions

[Robin Szemeti]

Hi,

on page http://www.debian.org/distrib/floppyinst

it says ...

Download the floppy disk image files from the 
/dists/stable/main/disks-/


where  = i386 etc

that directory (disks-i386) etc does not exist in the current stable release

Re: floppy install instructions

[Matt Kraai]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 12:34:11PM +0100, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> on page http://www.debian.org/distrib/floppyinst
> 
> it says ...
> 
> Download the floppy disk image files from the 
> /dists/stable/main/disks-/
> 
> where  = i386 etc
> 
> that directory (disks-i386) etc does not exist in the current stable release

 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/stable/main/disks-i386/

works for me.

-- 
Matt Kraai  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Debian GNU/Linux

Re: floppy install instructions

[Gerfried Fuchs]

* Robin Szemeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-07-15 12:34]:
> on page http://www.debian.org/distrib/floppyinst
> 
> it says ...
> 
> Download the floppy disk image files from the 
> /dists/stable/main/disks-/
> 
> where  = i386 etc
> 
> that directory (disks-i386) etc does not exist in the current stable release

 I like to differ, which servers have you checked?


they have it at least, and I'm quite confident that the other mirrors do
have them, too.

 So long,
Alfie
-- 
use Mail::Signature;
$sig = Mail::Signature->new;
print $sig->random;


pgpnAi6Ky9WXL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: floppy install instructions

[Robin Szemeti]

On Tuesday 15 July 2003 17:05, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Robin Szemeti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-07-15 12:34]:
> > on page http://www.debian.org/distrib/floppyinst
> >
> > it says ...
> >
> > Download the floppy disk image files from the
> > /dists/stable/main/disks-/
> >
> > where  = i386 etc
> >
> > that directory (disks-i386) etc does not exist in the current stable
> > release
>
>  I like to differ, which servers have you checked?
> 
> 
> they have it at least, and I'm quite confident that the other mirrors do
> have them, too.

ahh, yes. 

I was of course trying the non-us version of debian stable, as that is after 
all, the version I wish to install.  It seems floppy install option is only 
available for the USian variant?

or is it all the same thing, and a choice can be made later in the process, 
in which case should the main/disks-foo dirs exist in the non-us archive too?

-- 
Robin Szemeti

Redpoint Consulting Limited
Real Solutions For A Virtual World