Hey guys, please ensure to re-read Q22 on this link:
http://www.bxa.doc.gov/Encryption/Oct2KQandAs.html
It sure sounds like IP/DNS mucking is required to
export from the US.
Oh yeah -- please don't CC me on replies. I am subscribed.
Cheers! :)
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 10:06:41AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Better English:
>
>Programs which use patented algorithms that have a restricted
>license must also be stored on "non-us", since the "non-us" server
>is located in a country where patenting algorithms is not
>permitte
> > This would be non-DFSG if we couldn't distribute it at all.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:17:05PM -0800, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> You can certainly say "this _archive_ is only for the use of residents
> of the following countries" and even try to enforce that, as long as
> you don't actually tr
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 04:27:37PM -0800, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Okay, hopefully the final language change:
>
> Proposal is to change section 2.1.5 of the Debian policy to say:
>
>Non-free programs with cryptographic program code must be stored on
>the "non-us" server because of export
Raul Miller writes:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > non-US/main, since the license to the software itself is free.
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 02:47:57PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > But if I don't misunderstand chapter 7 (and 8) of the GPL a program
> > licenced under the G
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > non-US/main, since the license to the software itself is free.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 02:47:57PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> But if I don't misunderstand chapter 7 (and 8) of the GPL a program
> licenced under the GPL that is threatened by a patent
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > But is it non-US/main or non-US/non-free?
>
> non-US/main, since the license to the software itself is free.
But if I don't misunderstand chapter 7 (and 8) of the GPL a program
licenced under the GPL that is threate
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Package which have a DFSG-compliant license and don't use a patented
> algorithm will be allowed in main (as happens right now).
Which algorithms qualify as "patented"? Those for which are patent
exists, or those where the patent owner has published
On 11 Jan 2001 01:29:14 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> >...
> >Programs which use patented algorithms that have a restrictied
> >license also need to be stored on "non-us", since that is located
> >in a country where it is not allowed to pa
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> Jon Eisenstein wrote:
> > If, according to policy, no package is allowed to modify
> > environment variables, how should any package make the needed
> > change? Furthermore, doesn't this violate the policy (in the same
> > section) that no program can requi
On Jan 11, Drake Diedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Due to the dilligence of our security agencies the blacklisted 7 are not
>on the Internet (the official US govt line IIRC). At the very least it
>appears They've made it difficult to get IP numbers and DNS names if you're
>blacklisted.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 04:16:18PM -0800, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> This is a slightly updated changed to reflect comments from people.
> Debian developers can second this proposal for inclusion in the
> policy text.
>
> Proposal is to change section 2.1.5 of the Debian policy to say:
>
>N
On 20010111T010726+0100, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> I am now about 2 - 3 days away from my first upload of freeswan. Should it go
> into net (instead of non-US) now ? :-)
No.
A proposal does not automatically mean a policy change.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joey Hess writes:
>Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> * DFSG free programs with crypto can be made and (re)distributed
>> from the US now, as long as you don't consciously export it to
>> one of 7 countries which are on a special blacklist
>
>Of course that raises the q
14 matches
Mail list logo
