Re: USA crypto rules and libssl-dependent packages

2001-05-11 Thread Brian Ristuccia
es. Policy currently requires it. > What about the Debian source files? Same. > If I > make additional non-ssl .debs from the same source, would they be in > non-US or not? Yes, but only if the source actually contains crypto. Source or binary, policy currently requires export restr

Re: lame (again!)

2001-05-11 Thread Brian Ristuccia
that invokes a lame binary the user already has on their system. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: USA crypto rules and libssl-dependent packages

2001-05-11 Thread Brian Ristuccia
. Can you suggest one? I'm thinking > of lynx, myself. > lynx has seperate and distinct sources for the crypto and non-crypto versions. Based on size alone, I suspect the non-ssl version has all the crypto stuff ripped out (or the ssl version has it patched in). -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: USA crypto rules and libssl-dependent packages

2001-05-12 Thread Brian Ristuccia
or murdered by their state's government anyway. Going out of your way to provide crippled crypto-neutered versions of things only validates such sillyness. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: USA crypto rules and libssl-dependent packages

2001-05-13 Thread Brian Ristuccia
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 11:12:34PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 10:10:30PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > > > > Choice 3 is best. People who live in countries where the use of cryptography > > is restricted are probably subject to being arbitrari

Re: USA crypto rules and libssl-dependent packages

2001-05-10 Thread Brian Ristuccia
es. Policy currently requires it. > What about the Debian source files? Same. > If I > make additional non-ssl .debs from the same source, would they be in > non-US or not? Yes, but only if the source actually contains crypto. Source or binary, policy currently requires export restr

Re: lame (again!)

2001-05-11 Thread Brian Ristuccia
er that invokes a lame binary the user already has on their system. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: USA crypto rules and libssl-dependent packages

2001-05-11 Thread Brian Ristuccia
. Can you suggest one? I'm thinking > of lynx, myself. > lynx has seperate and distinct sources for the crypto and non-crypto versions. Based on size alone, I suspect the non-ssl version has all the crypto stuff ripped out (or the ssl version has it patched in). -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: USA crypto rules and libssl-dependent packages

2001-05-12 Thread Brian Ristuccia
murdered by their state's government anyway. Going out of your way to provide crippled crypto-neutered versions of things only validates such sillyness. -- Brian Ristuccia [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: USA crypto rules and libssl-dependent packages

2001-05-12 Thread Brian Ristuccia
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 11:12:34PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 10:10:30PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > > > > Choice 3 is best. People who live in countries where the use of cryptography > > is restricted are probably subject to being arbitrari