On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:49:14PM +0100, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> Ok, I know I am a bit late, but since I recently got my Debian
> developer status and this is exactly what I asked for in my mail on
> 2001-01-01, I second this.
> Are 2 seconds (this should be the 2. second on this phrasing if I
> h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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
[Yes, I know I'm (a bit) late, but I think one point has to be raised,
and as no-one has done so as far as I can tell...]
You are all aware that the http://www.bxa.doc.gov/Encryption/Default.htm
are Crypt Policies of the *Administration*, right?
And we also know that this administration has chang
> 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 restrictions of the U.S.
>
>Programs which use patented algo
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 09:20:35AM -0800, Pete Lypkie wrote:
> >Programs which use patented algorithms that have a restricted
> >license must also be stored on "non-us", since the "non-us" server
> >[...]
> > By the way, what does "restricted license" mean in this context?
> > Surely ev
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, 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
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.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \
| [EMAIL
On Jan 11, Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Programs which use patented algorithms that have a restrictied
> license must also be stored on "non-us", since that is located in a
> country where it is not allowed to patent algorithms.
But is it non-US/main or non-US/non-free?
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:38:40AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> That means if you use an algorithm that is patented in Germany
> the package will be in non-us? You better rename this "non-US"
> to "patented/main" and add the other needed "patented/contrib",
> "patented/non-free" and "patented/non-US
Previously Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Any examples of such countries?
See an earlier post I made, that listed them all.
> * Tell all the FTP mirrors of non-US that must of them are no longer
> allowed to ship non-US (e.g. ftp.de.debian.org is located in Germany
> where it's not 100% forbidden to pa
Yay. More random crossposts amongst multiple lists. Bcc'ed to -project.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 01:13:32AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> In addition, packages which have a DFSG-compliant license and use
> a patented algorithm that does not have a restrictive license will
> also be allowed in ma
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 patent algorithms.
>...
Any examples of such countries?
> If t
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 restrictions of the U.S.
Programs which use patented algorithms that have
Okay, one more final language change:
Proposal is to change section 2.1.5 of the Debian policy to say:
Non-free programs with cryptographic program code need to be stored
on the "non-us" server because of export restrictions of the U.S.
Programs which use patented algorithms that have
Previously Joey Hess wrote:
> You could just devolve it to the maintainers of the packages in question.
> It's not a great deal different from deciding if a package belongs in
> non-free, main, or cannot be put in debian at all.
But ftpmaster verifies that as well, that's why it takes a while be
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > So for the export restrictions only a "non-US/non-free" will be needed.
>
> crypto export restrictions, yes. Right.
>
> > That means if you use an algorithm that is patented in Germany the package
> > will be in non-us? You better rename this "non-U
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:
Non-free programs with cryptographic program code need to be stored
on the "non-
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> The exact restrictions are listed in some legal documentation; you can
> find it at the URL I gave earlier. We could indeed consider this on a
> per-package basis, but this would mean a lot of extra work for our
> ftpmaster team, which I don't think is warranted for non-fr
Previously Andrea Glorioso wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that program which are
> under a DFSG-compliant *license* and which don't have
> patent-encumbered code will be allowed to stay in main?
Package which have a DFSG-compliant license and don't use a patented
algorithm wi
Robert Thomson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:41:39PM +, Tim Haynes wrote:
> > Robert Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > So long as you don't mail a CD, cross a border, or force-feed to a mirror
> > > in one of the 7 victim countries, then you're fine.
> >
> > But, if you don't m
Previously Adam Heath wrote:
> What if the non-free program contains source, but is non-free for other
> reasons?
The exact restrictions are listed in some legal documentation; you can
find it at the URL I gave earlier. We could indeed consider this on a
per-package basis, but this would mean a lo
Previously Adrian Bunk wrote:
> So for the export restrictions only a "non-US/non-free" will be needed.
crypto export restrictions, yes. Right.
> That means if you use an algorithm that is patented in Germany the package
> will be in non-us? You better rename this "non-US" to "patented/main" and
Robert Thomson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:10:55PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > 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 s
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>...
> Non-free programs with cryptographic program code need to be stored
> on the "non-us" server because of export restrictions of the U.S.
So for the export restrictions only a "non-US/non-free" will be needed.
> Programs which use
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:41:39PM +, Tim Haynes wrote:
> Robert Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So long as you don't mail a CD, cross a border, or force-feed to a mirror
> > in one of the 7 victim countries, then you're fine.
>
> But, if you don't mind me being absolutely clear, putti
Previously Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> I was of the understanding that we would also have to notify the US of what is
> on our site.
We only need to tell them that our site has crypto stuff from what I
understand.
Wichert.
--
Robert Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:10:55PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > 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 countr
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:10:55PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> 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 th
I was of the understanding that we would also have to notify the US of what is
on our site.
At 12:51 PM 01-10-2001 -0800, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
In light of this I'm proposing to change section 2.1.5 of the
Debian policy to say:
Non-free programs with cryptographic program code need to be stored
on the "non-us" server because of export restrictions of the U.S.
Programs
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 13:10:55 -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> 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
> "Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> I've been reading through the current US export policies
Wichert> in between lately to see if we still need non-US, or at
Wichert> least in the way we currently have it (there is lots of
Wichert> info on the c
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> Non-free programs with cryptographic program code need to be stored
> on the "non-us" server because of export restrictions of the U.S.
What if the non-free program contains source, but is non-free for other
reasons?
> Programs whi
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:51:03 -0800, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> In light of this I'm proposing to change section 2.1.5 of the Debian
> policy to say:
Yes! IMHO it's definitely time to make it possible for packages in the
regular main archive to support crypto (mozilla, w3m, lynx, links,
kernel-i
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 question: What can Debian do to prevent export
to one of
Previously 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
Extra info: those 7 are Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan
and
I've been reading through the current US export policies in between
lately to see if we still need non-US, or at least in the way we
currently have it (there is lots of info on the crypto policies at
http://www.bxa.doc.gov/Encryption/Default.htm).
* DFSG free programs with crypto can be made and
47 matches
Mail list logo
