Hi Evan,
Sorry for being late to the party, but I thought I'd chime in anyway with
my 2ยข on the question.
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 11:26:13AM -0400, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> The main question I want to ask debian-legal is this:
> Does the anti-DRM requirement in the CCPL 3.0 draft, without
Stephen Gran wrote:
> The DFSG does not, and can not, cover local patent laws.
>
> Are you arguing that you would like Debian to remove every piece of
> software that might potentially be covered by a patent in any jurisdiction
> Debian distributes software to?
Why we have main/Non-US?
I will start to fill bugs for packages containing data (sound, music,
images, textures, icons...) when its origin is not specified (see
below). Many of this bugs will be RC, because of legal issues; that is
the reason for asking first on this list.
I won't make an extensive search, but I will fil
Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why we have main/Non-US?
1) We don't. The Packages file is empty these days.
2) In order to avoid exporting cryptography out of the US when it was
illegal to do so, the code was placed on a server outside the US. It was
still legal to use this software
Thank Adam for hir detailed explanation.
In fact, other people in this maillist used to give similar opinions,
but not in a so detailed (and clear) way.
I used to give such an assertion"any patent, unless it is licensed for
everyone's free use or not licensed at all, is against the DFSG." Now
thr
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Why we have main/Non-US?
>
> 1) We don't. The Packages file is empty these days.
So we can make use of it. :)
> 2) In order to avoid exporting cryptography out of the US when it was
> illegal to do so, the code was placed
Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we should avoid exporting cryptography out of the US when it was
> illegal to do so, and put the code on a server outside the US, IMO, we
> should avoid distribute patented software when it was illegal to do so,
> and place the code on a server outsid
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 11:02:17PM +0800, Weakish Jiang wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Weakish Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Why we have main/Non-US?
> > 1) We don't. The Packages file is empty these days.
> So we can make use of it. :)
This would be non-US-Japan-UK-Germany (IIRC
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:43:48 -0400
"James R. Van Zandt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi James,
--cut--
> navigational stars is included. Most of the algorithms employed are
> from The Astronomical Almanac (AA) published by the U.S. Government
> Printing Office.
Firstly, sorry if i am saying s
On Sunday 20 August 2006 18:21, Adam Borowski took the opportunity to say:
> Reviving non-US and renaming it appropiately would be nice. Of
> course, the current non-US server resides in Germany and Germany is
> one of the rogue countries...
Doesn't German patent law adhere to the EPC?
--
Magnu
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> On Sunday 20 August 2006 18:21, Adam Borowski took the opportunity to say:
> > Reviving non-US and renaming it appropiately would be nice. Of
> > course, the current non-US server resides in Germany and Germany is
> > one of the rogue countries...
>
> Doesn't German paten
11 matches
Mail list logo
