Re: FilterProxy and DFSG-compliancy?

2001-03-09 Thread Colin Watson
Bob McElrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> What next? "You may not use this gcc to compile censorware programs?" >> "You may not compile things I disapprove of against this glibc?" If you >> have any contact with the author, please try to make him underst

Re: FilterProxy and DFSG-compliancy?

2001-03-09 Thread Bob McElrath
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Bob McElrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >You *may* use FilterProxy (or some derivative) to implement censorware. > >(Note that you would have to fork, since I wouldn't have anything to do > >with it) By my license, however, the censorware cannot be applied

Re: FilterProxy and DFSG-compliancy?

2001-03-09 Thread Kenneth Vestergaard Schmidt
On Friday 09 March 2001 17:08, Bob McElrath wrote: > Yep, that would be a pain. Which is why Debian requires things in main > to be uniformly licensed, and why FilterProxy belongs in non-free. So with those words, I'm just going to fulfill my ITP, and put it in non-free. Thanks everybody for hel

Re: unofficial mozilla 0.8 deb

2001-03-09 Thread John Galt
This issue has been done to death. Basically, there's a notification requirement in the BXA rules. Nobody that can do it wants to, and nobody that wants to do it can. On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Craig Sanders wrote: >On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 01:25:03AM +0200, Sampo Niskanen wrote: >> >> On Wed, 7 Mar 2

Re: unofficial mozilla 0.8 deb, autonotification in dupload

2001-03-09 Thread Brian Ristuccia
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 06:04:59PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > > This issue has been done to death. Basically, there's a notification > requirement in the BXA rules. It seems to me that once someone has met the notification requirement for a given bit of software, the export restrictions on it m

Re: unofficial mozilla 0.8 deb

2001-03-09 Thread Craig Sanders
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 06:04:59PM -0700, John Galt wrote: > > This issue has been done to death. Basically, there's a notification > requirement in the BXA rules. Nobody that can do it wants to, and nobody > that wants to do it can. yes, there's a notification requirement. i pointed that out

Re: US Maintainer Putting Package on non-US

2001-03-09 Thread Brian Ristuccia
* Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010305 18:46]: > My problem is that I'm a US citizen. I think, as far as I can tell, > that it's legal for me to upload this code to a non-US server. It is, provided you mail a copy of the software or the public address where you will be posting it to [EMAIL