In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> > Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> >> IMHO it's ok to not give them access to the non-documentation stuff, because
>> >> this way we don't have to make sure people don't violate their export laws.
>>
>> > I'm totally against this. We have no responsibility to enforce the USG's
>> > stupid export laws, and I see no reason we should take that
>> > responsibility on.
>>
>> Did you overlooked the "not" in my "ok to not give them access" or did I just
>> don't understand your sentence, Ben.
> No, I didn't. I guess you didn't understand me.
>> My position is that I don't want to give
>> US-citizens access except for openssl/doc/ because this way we don't have to
>> enforce the export laws stuff. Don't we both think the same?
> My point is that we don't have to enforce the export laws - they don't
> apply to us. I am saying we should do nothing about US export laws.
> As it happens we probably want the docs separate for other reasons, but
> let's not get into worrying about any laws that don't actually apply to
> us - it only encourages them to keep on making stupid laws if they work
> so effectively that people they don't even apply to obey them.
> Of course, if contributors _want_ us to arrange things in a particular
> way for their convenience, that's a different matter.
Ah, now I understand your point of view. Sounds reasonable to me, too.
Thanks for making it clear.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
