When non-US was divided into non-US/main etc. it was decreed, that /main & non-US/main together are the free part, as determined by license. Placement into /main or non-US/main is determined by export control laws which have no bearing on licenses. So it is perfectly permissible to have in /main a binary package whose sources are in non-US/main. (It only means that the sources are in that part of main that is not hosted in US.)
t.aa Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, Aug 20, 1999 5:05 PM > On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 06:11:59PM -0400, James Mastros wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 15, 1999 at 01:55:33AM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > > > On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > > Apart from that, isn't there a non-US problem with the > > > > SSL support ? Take > > > > care not to install in main something that could not be > > > > exported by US > > > > residents. > > > right, i have to break source in two anyway. i can't put > > > source in main > > > distribution that require some non-US packages, can i? > > No, but you can put source in non-US/main that builds both main and > > non-US/main binary packages. > > Can you? Isn't main supposed to be free standing? Clearly the source > can't go in main, so the binaries can't either. > > xpdf and xpdf-i have the same .orig.tar.gz. Mind you, I wouldn't build > them from the same source package even if I could; too hard to apply > the -i patches during build.