Re: New licence for cryto++ code-base
Please cc me, I'm not on debian-legal...
>>>>> "Jeffry" == Jeffry Smith <smith@missioncriticallinux.com> writes:
Jeffry> Nope, non-free (discriminates against non-americans). If
Jeffry> I read this right, unless someone can show prior written
Jeffry> approval from the US Government to distribute this, Debian
Jeffry> couldn't put it on ANY server, period, since non-US folks
Jeffry> have access to them. Why do they place laws into the
Jeffry> licenses? Anyone bound by the law is bound by the law,
Jeffry> regardless of the contract, anyone not bound by it by law,
Jeffry> now is bound by it by contract.
The clause you're reffering to is standard ITAR/BXA legalese required
due to the US gov'ts fear of it's own people. If the code is already
outside the US, then Debain can put it in non-US.
The issue with patents on IDEA is more significant. I may simply
remove that particular file from the source.
On a related note, is it still Debian policy to place DFSG-compliant
packages that rely on libraries from non-US in contrib? I started
packaging crypto++ to avoid maintaining the older copy of this library
contained in the tripwire source code. Tripwire is currently in
non-US because of this crypto code, but if removing the crypto would
force tripwire to contrib then I'm much less motivated to package
crypto++
--
Stephen
"So if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood."... "And
therefore?"... "A witch!"
Reply to: