On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> Does a source that's licensed under the GPL automaticly produce a binary
> that can only be licensed under the GPL?
If you are the author of the program, you can distribute the binary and
the source under separate, even incompatible, licenses. You c
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> Does a source that's licensed under the GPL automaticly produce a binary
> that can only be licensed under the GPL?
Since a compilation is a translation into machine language, then the
resulting binary can be considered a derivative of the Program, a
Does a source that's licensed under the GPL automaticly produce a binary
that can only be licensed under the GPL?
--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=
* http://benham.net/index.html<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It's too much of a slippery slope. Put something with 3000 lines of crypto
hooks in non-US. Then 300 lines. Then 30. Then anything that runs exec().
Bruce
Joseph Carter wrote:
> The software provides configuration file options which allow you to run
> any arbitrary program through standard functions used for running any and
> every program on the system and captures the results. This does not
> constitute hooks for encryption, though it arguably wou
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 11:31:19AM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia writes:
>
> > Wouldn't seizing said machines violate the electronic communication privacy
> > act or something similar by interefering with email on those machines as
> > well?
>
> The ECPA doesn't prevent police
Brian Ristuccia writes:
> Wouldn't seizing said machines violate the electronic communication privacy
> act or something similar by interefering with email on those machines as
> well?
The ECPA doesn't prevent police from seizing computer hardware when they
have a warrant, although it would be fu
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 09:22:09AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > If you think about prime numbers near the Mexican borders the US could try
> > to say you're exporting crypto. We made the decision that a simple "run
> > this seperate program and pipe output back to me" cannot reasonably be
>
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 09:22:09AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
> > And frankly speaking for only myself as a citizen of the US and not as a
> > developer here, the US government can shove their crypto regs someplace
> > unpleasant---I refuse to comply with them on the grounds that they are an
On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> If you think about prime numbers near the Mexican borders the US could try
> to say you're exporting crypto. We made the decision that a simple "run
> this seperate program and pipe output back to me" cannot reasonably be
> considered encryption hooks.
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 02:00:34AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Just to make clear I'm understanding the situation; does mutt have
> anything that could be interpreted as "hooks" to encryption, even if it
> doesn't have crypto code as part of the package? Or are scripts &
> instructions on how
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:
> From: Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > What has changed that allows us to distribute mutt from the US to people
> > outside of the US despite the fact that mutt is capable of integrating with
> > strong encryption software and thereby capable of per
12 matches
Mail list logo
