On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 01:30:09PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> It does suck that Debian doesn't have integrated crypto. I never
> claimed otherwise. I live in the US and I hate it. But that doesn't
> change the fact that I can't export code to people and say, "Do
> whatever you want with it."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > However, it seems I'm currently enmeshed in a battle to convince
> > people that there is a use restriction. In that case, a number of the
> > pieces of software that Debian distributes do not allow
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 01:32:13PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The essence of your argument seems to be that, rather than doing the
> > best we can to promote and spread Free Software under the circumstances,
> > we have a moral imperative via the DFS
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, it seems I'm currently enmeshed in a battle to convince
> people that there is a use restriction. In that case, a number of the
> pieces of software that Debian distributes do not allow additional
> restrictions. Regardless of our philosophy.
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The essence of your argument seems to be that, rather than doing the
> best we can to promote and spread Free Software under the circumstances,
> we have a moral imperative via the DFSG to stick our collective head in
> the sand whenever our philosophy co
Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm also not really sure why everyone wants to make this into such a big
> thing. Seriously: everyone putting their 2c in just isn't useful. It
> might be fun for you, but it's a nuisance and a waste of time for the
> people who're actually trying to get some work done. If y
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > You seem to be saying that the contract is worthless since it is
> > difficult to enforce.
>
> No, I'm saying that the contract is unneccesary, because it won't make
> any difference. In the cases where it
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:34:41PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > And to answer a question posed by Steve Langsek, yes, people can lie.
> > > People have always been able to break licenses. Just bec
--
you have been removed.
Title: 아이따따따
신개념의 인터넷 검색엔진
네티즌이 주인이되어 만드는 검색엔진 아이따따따 소개
more
»
Scripsit Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > So why bother trying to make a *contract* with users to enforce
> > things that *criminal law* already enforces in every case where the
> > contract could be of value? Isn't that just what we (debian-legal)
> > say is non-free when somebody else tries
--
Welcome to the liers.org/liers.net auction notification list. You are
receiving this message because you have been subscribed to this list. This
list has been setup to notify you when the auction of "liers.org" and
"liers.net", on eBay commences. If you do not wish to be on this list you
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:33:45PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So we're going to put a notice on the US websites telling people that,
> if they want to use the software for nukes, they can't get it here but
> have to go to a non-us mirror? Isn't this basi
So since Ben Collins seems sure that the crypto-in-main is happening
regardless of this discussion here (and there's no reason it
shouldn't), I'm bowing out of this thread. It seems pointless to
continue arguing the point.
Thomas
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does *Debian* have to make it a condition that *other people* don't
> make nukes with the software? As you pointed out yourself, the
> government already makes it criminal for people to manufacture nukes
> (not just the U.S. government; hobby nukemaking
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And to answer a question posed by Steve Langsek, yes, people can lie.
> > People have always been able to break licenses. Just because it is
> > difficult to police doesn't make it irrelevant. Debia
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True; I think Thomas is a bit confused on this one.
>
> I believe that adding a use restriction to our EULA (and thus having
> an EULA) would violate the social contract.
>
> However putting a notice on US websites so that people who want to
> construct nu
17 matches
Mail list logo
