On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 08:24:23PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> > That would presumably be on the assumptions that all crypto packages
> > will be in main before release (which doesn't seem very likely at
> > present) and that those were the only things that were in non-US
> > (which is not the case either)
> No, I think what has so far been the binary-1-NONUS CD is going to
> become the binary-1 CD - no special US version. "non-US" ==
> "cryptographic code" according to policy 2.1.5:
The exact polocy wrt "non-US" stuff is confused. It's safest to treat
it as "copyright is freely licensed, but restricted for miscellaneous
other reasons" and be quite conservative about what you do with it.
> > We'll still need non-US for those things that are patented in the
> > USA, and presumably also for a growing band of programs that are
> > deemed to infringe on the DMCA and other bizarre American laws.
> Hm, I'm confused - I thought that either these programs cannot be
> packaged at all, or they end up in (non-US/)non-free.
Not consistently, no. The c-i-m bug http://bugs.debian.org/81852 eg,
expects patented stuff to go in non-US/main.
> AJ, could you please clarify: Do we need two versions of the first CD?
We need a main-only CD. I'm not really sure there's a huge need for
a non-US/main CD. (Or, at least, whether there will be once mozilla and
postgresql and a hanful of others propogate to woody/main, which will be
over the next couple of days)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``BAM! Science triumphs again!''
-- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
Attachment:
pgp4olZRnNQO6.pgp
Description: PGP signature