Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

2004-05-04 Thread Matt Kraai
x27;t asked contributors to assign their copyrights to SPI, do we have the right to do this? -- Matt Kraai[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://ftbfs.org/

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

2003-07-22 Thread Matt Kraai
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 04:35:45PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 11:45:39AM +0200, Matt Kraai wrote: > > Would the the descriptions be correct if the following patch was > > applied? > > > > *** packages.wml.~1.52.~Tue Jul 8 17:25:4

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

2003-07-17 Thread Matt Kraai
me onerous license condition restricting use or redistribution of the software. They cannot -- Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux

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

2003-07-15 Thread 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 r

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

2003-07-08 Thread Matt Kraai
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 03:01:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: > > Index: english/distrib/packages.wml > > === > > RCS file: /cvs/webwml/w

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

2003-07-08 Thread Matt Kraai
t sentence is > needlessly vague. 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 woul

Re: Non-US definition

2002-07-11 Thread Matt Kraai
Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Matt Kraai wrote: > > * it contains cryptographic program code which needed to be > >stored on a non-US server because of United States export > >restrictions, or > > This is no longer true. Uh, I agree that such package

Re: Non-US definition

2002-07-09 Thread Matt Kraai
[I posted a similar message in late April, but since no one has responded, and I think this is an important issue, I'll try raising it again. If I'm missing something obvious, please let me know so I don't continue to make a fool of myself.] Howdy, I believe there are two possible reasons for a

Non-US definition

2002-04-24 Thread Matt Kraai
Howdy, The package information page[1] contains the following description of the Non-US section: 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