Re: Are DFSG free package in non-us part of Debian?
On Sun, Nov 15, 1998 at 01:47:28AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Davide G. M. Salvetti wrote:
> > ***** MS => Martin Schulze
> >
> > >> Your admission is a key point.
> >
> > MS> No, it's not.
> >
> > Explain to me why, please, possibly by answering this simple question:
> > is `The GNU Privacy Guard' DFSG free?
>
> The DFSG doesn't cover law of certain countries, thus I have to admit
> that the DFSG doesn't play the central role here.
Exactly. It is _not_ the license that is forbiding export from the US here.
> Since the DFSG
> only covers redistribution through license it seems to be DFSG free.
It _is_ DFSG free.
> However due to lame crypto law it still cannot go into main and thus
> no package in main may depend/recommend on/ it.
I can see why you think it is more practical to have no package depend on
non-US packages, but I can't follow your line of reasoning. This whole
non-US issue is outside of our scope, we have little to none influence on
it. The important thing is that the author does not forbid redistribution.
> > MS> Since it cannot redistributed by a US citizen to a non-us citizen
> > MS> it is not *perfectly* free. I grant that it uses a free license
> > MS> but still isn't freely redistributable. No, I don't like that.
> >
> > I disagree most strongly with this interpretation, in fact I think
> > it's perfectly free.
>
> Then why is it in non-US instead of main?
Because our master site is in the US. If our master site would be in
Germany, Gnu GPG would be in the main distribution.
So what can Debian or the original author do to make it more dfsg free,
Joey? Would you please write the GPG project, "hey dudes, your software is
not free, because I can't export it from the US" if you really think it is
not dfsg free. This is not only silly, it is obfuscation.
The fact that you "don't like" the situation is not helping here. Please
write the president of the US to get the situation changed, but please stop
this obfuscation. If you don't like packages in main depending on packages
in non-US, simply say so. The technical problems for the user are probably
reason enough for now (but I would like a better solution in the future).
> > Don't skip my question, please, what will you do if some exotic
> > country introduced export restrictions on C compilers, will you kick
> > gcc out of main? I can't believe you will. Please don't tell me that
>
> The compiler is a bad example, since a distribution without a C compiler
> can't exist.
? What is bad with the example? It is your reasoning that is bad. Following
your argumentation, we had to stop the Debian project because it is not free
anymore, because we can't redistribute it in country XYZ?
> If you're referring to some sort of vi or other program, yes, we would
> have to, otherwise we won't be able to provide free software for
> these countries. I assume that you won't want to keep this countries
> from using Debian / free software.
WTF? Who is trying to keep this countries from using Debian/free software?
> > MS> Believe me that I don't like it either but I cannot fix broken US
> > MS> crypto law by programming. Please talk to the american senat or
> > MS> something, try to get involved with EFF and similar campaigns.
> >
> > I'm not a US citizen, I just worked there for some time. It's not a
> > major problem of my life what the US government will decide on this
> > issue: I support such efforts as I can, but I think this completely
> > misses my point. The States are not the world, neither are the world
> > center. You are aware that some packages in main may be illegal in
> > some country because of their contents? (Think of the Bible, I'm not
> > sure, but I won't be surprised to discover that there exist counties
> > were people aren't permitted to read it.)
>
> I remember that we already had such a discussion some time ago. In that
> case we have to remove these packages from main or we won't support those
> countries. This is a question if we want to spread free software and
> provide users with a free distribution of Linux or let them stick with
> Slackware etc.
So we are responsible for the problems of the world or what? To what extend?
Please explain. Can you guarantee that every package in main is exportable
to all countries in the world? What if the world does change and nobody
notices?
> > MS> We also cannot include it into main since it is not freely
> > MS> redistributable.
> >
> > In the U.S., which, I'll repeat myself, are not the center of the
> > world.
>
> In non-US you can link contrib and non-US together with main and you're
> done. What's the problem?
Currently my problem is to see why GPG is not dfsg free in your eyes.
In my eyes, non-US is simply a solution to make it possible for people
to get dfsg free crypto software if their countries allows to import it, so
export restrictions don't bite.
I have extreme problems understanding your position. Please clarify.
You seem to mix up license problems with import/export restrictions
imposed by national law.
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: