Re: CD images and US export laws

2000-05-25 Thread Robert Bihlmeyer
"Frederik Vanrenterghem" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't get the problem. Wasn't this law recently changed, resulting in free > export of encryption software? AFAIK you still have to jump through some hoops before you can consider exporting legal. I think it would be a nice thing for the le

Netscape/Fortify/Crypto (was: Bug#67331: potato bugs)

2000-07-19 Thread Robert Bihlmeyer
[cutting down on CCs and CCing debian-legal instead - the thread should probably continue there] Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > no there is still weak and strong encryption versions of netscape, you > still must go though a click through page stating that you are not > downloading fro

Bug#85072: freeamp: contains non-free arial.ttf

2001-02-06 Thread Robert Bihlmeyer
Package: freeamp Version: 2.1-0rc5.1 Severity: important freeamp distributes /usr/share/freeamp/themes/FreeAmp.fat, which is really a tar.gz. Inside it is contained, among other things, arial.ttf. This font comes from our friends in Redmond, and the EULA (included in the .fat) says: > [...] Copie

Re: lame (again!)

2001-05-13 Thread Robert Bihlmeyer
"Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> 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 addresse

Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.

2001-09-16 Thread Robert Bihlmeyer
[cc and reply-to more appropriate list] Richard Atterer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 10:42:59AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: [doc-html-w3] > > That package is in non-free. IIRC the issue is that you can't modify > > the standards. Which is so

Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.

2001-09-17 Thread Robert Bihlmeyer
[please cc me] David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If there's an exception for non-topical chapters, then why not for > standards? Because these are completely different things, see below. > A non-topical chapter is more likely to get out of date than a > standard, which by design is in

Re: RFC about copyrights and right package section for W3C docs.

2001-09-20 Thread Robert Bihlmeyer
nt that the original author > wrote. Have you actual examples of rants that are protected by FDL invariant sections to point at, or do you make this up while you go along? Now I'll make something up ... suppose I place the following short chapter under a "don't remove this, you

Netscape/Fortify/Crypto (was: Bug#67331: potato bugs)

2000-07-19 Thread Robert Bihlmeyer
[cutting down on CCs and CCing debian-legal instead - the thread should probably continue there] Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > no there is still weak and strong encryption versions of netscape, you > still must go though a click through page stating that you are not > downloading fr