On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 09:53:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that that matters. The BXA refers to "Open Cryptographic
> Interfaces". My understanding was that any software which contained hooks
> to call other software which actually performed encryption was regulated
> as
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 09:03:48PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > 2) Do the binary .debs go in non-US?
> > >
> > > Yes. Policy currently requires it.
> >
> > OK, I understand that this is a quirk of Debian policy, and not US law.
> >
>
> It wouldn't make sense for .deb's t
> Really? I am not doing any static linking with libssl, only dynamic, so I
> don't believe that I am including any crypto.
I'm not sure that that matters. The BXA refers to "Open Cryptographic
Interfaces". My understanding was that any software which contained hooks
to call other software which
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 08:28:12PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
>
> > >
> > > 2) Do the binary .debs go in non-US?
> >
> > Yes. Policy currently requires it.
>
> OK, I understand that this is a quirk of Debian policy, and not US law.
>
It wouldn't make sense for .deb's to go in a place diff
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 01:51:54AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> >
> > 1) I live in the US. Therefore, do I have to send a BXA notification to the
> > government (I believe license exception TSU is applicable - correct me if
> > I'm
> > wrong)?
>
> You may. Since it's easy, you probablys hould
Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:14:22PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > >> Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I would like clarify the reason for lame not being included in the debian
> > > archives, not even non-US.
> >
> > http://www.d
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 10:14:22PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would like clarify the reason for lame not being included in the debian
> > archives, not even non-US.
>
> http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package
>
> IIRC your ques
>> Viral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like clarify the reason for lame not being included in the debian
> archives, not even non-US.
http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/unable-to-package
IIRC your questions are addressed there.
--
Marcelo | Mustrum Ridcully did a lot for
Hi all,
I would like clarify the reason for lame not being included in the debian
archives, not even non-US.
Firstly, the lame license is LGPL as of version 3.88.
The psycho-acoustic model used in LAME is also GPLed (or LGPLed). I believe
its not the same as the one patented by the Fraunhofer I
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 07:27:44PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> Hi. I am a novice Debian package maintainer, in the queue for becoming an
> official developer. I am maintaining a package called althea, which is an
> IMAP email client for GTK+. They have recently added support for SSL through
> l
10 matches
Mail list logo
