Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474549 --- Comment #47 from Philipp Dunkel <p.dun...@cacert.org> 2011-11-02 05:08:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #44) > (In reply to comment #41) > > The only recourse is that we state "If you are not bound by the CCA you may > > not > > rely (as defined) upon anything CAcert says with its certificates" Because > > this > > then eliminates any reliance in statements made via CAcert certificates > > between > > the member and the user. > > And as long as you insist on doing this, the root is non-free. Well in that case we need to stop right now. And Fedora will also remove all CA-Certificates from the distribution, because none of them are free. (The StarCom and Verisign Examples you provide below are an indication of that) > > In summary, in order to say that CAcert's licence is bad (non-free is the > > term > > used above) we have to also say that all the other licences of all the other > > CAs are better (freer?). Has that been done? > > I hereby say it. It's likely that some of the other root certificate licenses > strictly speaking do not meet Fedora's requirements, but CAcert's use > restriction is by far the most blatant. And here we arrive at the real problem. CAcert is blatant about what we do and do not do. Other CAs are more politic about it and hide the same things in the fine print. You almost make it look like openness is not appreciated at Fedora? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
