-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 of
[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
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 09:23:26AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Personally, I'm developing a bit of a pet peeve against people who
insist that things be done while at the same time refusing to do them
themselves.
Are you going to go through the distribution and maintain a list of
which
On 29-Jan-01, 20:07 (CST), Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony Are you going to go through the distribution and maintain a
Anthony list of which
Steve == Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve On 29-Jan-01, 20:07 (CST), Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Heh. Sure. I'll do it once. And your proposal has no way of
ensuring the tags are either
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jakob == Jakob Bøhm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jakob no-source (example: Netscape, opera)
Jakob no-commercial-use (example: zyxel)
Jakob payment-required (example: opera5.0)
Jakob contains-crypto (example: RSA, gnupg)
Jakob uses-us-patent (example:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:42:22PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jakob == Jakob Bøhm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jakob no-source (example: Netscape, opera)
Jakob no-commercial-use (example: zyxel)
Jakob payment-required (example: opera5.0)
Jakob
Colin == Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Colin In a non-free package I maintain, I explain in
Colin debian/copyright why the package is in non-free, to aid CD-ROM
Colin distributors trying to decide whether they can include the
Colin package. Does this mean that I have to add a
Hi,
[incidentally, your sigs all fail to verify, for some reason]
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:05:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Anthony Actually we're currently making the determination on whether
Anthony the
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:51:35PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[incidentally, your sigs all fail to verify, for some reason]
Geez, what now? Stupid bloody program.
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony In truth, other members of the Debian community
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
This is a complete strawman. No one's said anything about adding 150+
countries. Maybe two or three, or even half a dozen, but not 150+.
ANd, incidentally, if any tags are permitted, I shall insist
on at least non-india,
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony Are you going to go through the distribution and maintain a
Anthony list of which packages all these tags apply to, and which
Anthony they don't?
Heh.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 08:38:37PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Debian is inclusive; and things that can't be put on master
are put on the non-{the country master lives in} servers. People in
jurisdiction where some software is illegal, can always craft rsync
rules to do partial
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Anthony On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 08:38:37PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Jakob == Jakob Bøhm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, in case you are wondering, I shall formally object to any
such scheme to pull any more software off master
Hi
Manoj Srivastava schrieb:
I repeat: we only have non-US since master lives in US, and we
must obey US laws for master while master is here. How up are
you on the laws of Bhutan, if I may ask?
Why is master in such a restrictive country as the US anyway?
As long as there are any contries
* Arthur Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] [010128 03:48]:
Shure the US is getting preferential treatment. Would you ever
bother to set up master in, say, Iran and have to maintain a
second master even though everything could be put onto the
second master in the first place?
I would guess a large part
Seth Arnold schrieb:
No, moving the main server to some other country would just strain the
poor intercontinental links all the more, as nice a political statement
as it would make.
There could still be partial mirrors everywhere, but only _one_
master.
ciao, 2ri
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Jakob == Jakob Bøhm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jakob The main archive is mirrored and copied around the globe both
Jakob inside and outside SPI. Including anything which it would
Jakob be illegal to post or copy anywhere in the world could get
Jakob those
Jakob == Jakob Bøhm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jakob 5. For countries in which almost anything is illegal,
Jakob dropping Debian mirroring in those countries is already
Jakob being done as a solution.
The end cases are not the problem; what is a problem is that
there is a spectrum of
Arthur == Arthur Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Arthur Hi
Arthur Manoj Srivastava schrieb:
I repeat: we only have non-US since master lives in US, and we
must obey US laws for master while master is here. How up are
you on the laws of Bhutan, if I may ask?
Arthur Why is master in such a
Jakob Bøhm wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
However some of this is speculative, maybe someone
closer to the core should survey the existing mirrors
to check how many can actually carry crypto legally,
then it would be easier to decide whether or not
losing the remaining mirrors is
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:05:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Anthony == Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
Would you also object to adding a header to the Packages files something
like:
Package: xine-decss
Section: non-US/utils
Distribution-Hint: non-US,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This is wrong. If there is no problem exporting it from the
US, it shall be put on master proper (we don't care what the laws in
iran say, for example, when it comes to putting software on the sites
in the US).
People, I know this apparent bias
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Jakob == Jakob Bøhm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jakob What I was proposing was, that package maintainers would
Jakob (by some future policy change not directly related to non-us)
Frankly, I would be opposed to such a policy mod. I am not
convinced that
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 10:37:57PM +0100, Jakob B?hm wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This is wrong. If there is no problem exporting it from the
US, it shall be put on master proper (we don't care what the laws in
iran say, for example, when it comes to putting software on
Jakob == Jakob Bøhm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jakob The main archive is mirrored and copied around the globe both
Jakob inside and outside SPI. Including anything which it would
Jakob be illegal to post or copy anywhere in the world could get
Jakob those mirrors and users in trouble.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 08:38:37PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Jakob == Jakob Bøhm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, in case you are wondering, I shall formally object to any
such scheme to pull any more software off master that we are not
constrained to do because of silly parochial
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Jakob == Jakob Bøhm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jakob 2. Mechanical filtering on specific common issues including
Jakob the meta-issue other problems becomes possible, e.g. when
Jakob creating cd-roms or mirrors, or when setting up a
Jakob fool-proofing filter on
Nicolás Lichtmaier 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 restrictions of the U.S.
I propose
Jakob == Jakob Bøhm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jakob I propose changing end to:
Jakob because of export, import and possession restrictions of various
Jakob countries (not limited to the USA).
This is wrong. If there is no problem exporting it from the
US, it shall be put on master
Jakob == Jakob Bøhm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jakob What I was proposing was, that package maintainers would
Jakob (by some future policy change not directly related to non-us)
Frankly, I would be opposed to such a policy mod. I am not
convinced that such granularity does not open me
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:57:31PM +0100, Jakob B?hm wrote:
Some examples of issues for 2 include
no-source (example: Netscape, opera)
no-commercial-use (example: zyxel)
payment-required (example: opera5.0)
These are all non-free. If they're also in non-US
there must be other reasons.
..
Jakob == Jakob Bøhm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jakob 2. Mechanical filtering on specific common issues including
Jakob the meta-issue other problems becomes possible, e.g. when
Jakob creating cd-roms or mirrors, or when setting up a
Jakob fool-proofing filter on apt to protect oneself from
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 03:40:56PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Jakob == Jakob Bøhm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jakob 2. Mechanical filtering on specific common issues including
Jakob the meta-issue other problems becomes possible, e.g. when
Jakob creating cd-roms or mirrors, or when
Sam TH [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Texas legal profession got pissed, since Nolo was taking their
clients, and sued.
There were also allegations that Nolo was including out-of-date
materials, forms, etc.
IANAL, but my wife has a JD...
Mike.
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
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Jakob Bøhm wrote:
Placing crypto software in any part of the main
archive still has a very important legal problem:
snip
Sorry, to be putting down a nice idea, but I would
hate to see the project getting in trouble from
checking only US laws.
'non-US' seems to be a
Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
'non-US' seems to be a misnomer nowadays (as it has been
for some time
already). Should it perhaps be replaced by 'crypto' and
'patented', so
that both can be separately mirrored in different
countries?
Remco
--
Many crypto algorithms are patented, so there is
Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Jakob Bøhm wrote:
Placing crypto software in any part of the main
archive still has a very important legal problem:
snip
Sorry, to be putting down a nice idea, but I would
hate to see the project getting in trouble from
checking only US
Placing crypto software in any part of the main
archive still has a very important legal problem:
Even though the US may have lifted its restrictions
on crypto stuff, some other countries might not
(China?, Russia?). This means three subproblems:
1. Placing crypto stuff in the us archive will
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 even if the
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] %
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:
Non-free
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.
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 some
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 threatened
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
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 GPL that
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
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 try to
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
permitted.
By
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
Package: debian-policy
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
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 crypto
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 raises
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 22:11:21 +0100, Arthur Korn wrote:
We do consciously export crypto to the blacklisted countries if we put
it into main, don't we?
I doubt it. I strongly suspect Transmeta's lawyers have gone over this issue
before (witness ftp.kernel.org/pub/welcome.msg and
I was of the understanding that we would also have to notify the US of what is
on our site.
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 that
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 countries which are
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.
--
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, putting the
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
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 special
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 will
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-free
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
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-US to
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
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:41:39PM +, Tim Haynes wrote:
But, if you don't mind me being absolutely clear, putting the stuff up on a
publicly accessible site based in the US knowing that folks from the dodgy
7 might come visiting is still acceptable?
Due to the dilligence of our
69 matches
Mail list logo
