Re: kernel-patch-int, non-us and non-free.

[Robert van der Meulen <rvdm@cistron.nl>]

Hi,

Quoting Peter Makholm (peter@makholm.net):
> > kernel-patch-int is currently in non-us. I'd like to 'remove' the parts
> > that don't need to be in non-us, and put them in main, in a seperate
> > package.
> And what parts do you think this is? Traditionally crypto-code can only go
> into non-us. I have no idea what the american export rules says these days
> and what Debian thinks about them. I would leave everything in non-us just
> to be safe.
That is part of my question. I am aware that it's a lot easier/simpler to
keep everything in non-us (it wouldn't hurt me, i'm in .nl).
I just would like to put stuff that _can_ be exported in main, if it's
possible.
Does non-us imply non-free ? Does non-free imply non-us ? (the last is a
silly question, but if the answer to the first is 'no', where does non-us,
non-free code go? )

> > kernel-patch-int kernel-patch-int-nonus kernel-patch-int-nonfree (i hate
> > those names)
> nonus is the worst. If you keep everything in non-us it isn't so bad.
Less work, less crypto for the US - not my goal :)

> > - What goes where.  - What goes in non-free
> Just remember any license refering outside "you can do anything you want
> just you apply to the guidelines given by foobar inc." is non-free (And
> boom goes half the patch.
Then the other half can be in a non-non-free part of Debian ;)

> > - Am i being sane here? :)
> I'm not the one to judge. I gave up on the same task.
I totally understand, and after digging deeper i can see why ;) I'm trying
to keep up, and get the thing packaged as flexible as possible though..

Thanks,
	Robert

-- 
|      rvdm@cistron.nl - Cistron Internet Services - www.cistron.nl        |  
|          php3/c/perl/html/c++/sed/awk/linux/sql/cgi/security             |
|         My statements are mine, and not necessarily cistron's.           |
                  Save the whales. Collect the whole set.