[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Initial Proposal to solve this non-US issue

Raul Miller wrote:
> > How about asking each maintainer to include in her package a list of
> > countries that the package must be kept out of?

Manoj Srivastava writes:
> > Firstly, this puts too much of a burden on the maintainer. I have
> > little idea about the laws of my state, and then there are federal
> > laws, and then laws of other countries -- international law requires
> > several years of training.

john@dhh.gt.org <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
> How would my proposal add any burden? Now the maintainer must decide
> whether the package goes in non-us or not: under my proposal he
> would have to decide whether or not it needs a restrictions file and
> header. Most of us would just go on assuming that our packages are not
> restricted anywhere. and so make no changes.

Your proposal localizes the responsibility.  Mine provides a distinct
interface layer between defining the issues and defining the implications
of those issues.

Yeah, in the general case it probably isn't legal to write any software
in the U.S. [because you can't guarantee that you're not infringing on
any patents when you do so].  However, there are only a few areas where
this is a recognizable problem, and it is worth making a list of those
areas and what their implications are for people in the U.S.

You know that if we just ask people to say "ok/not ok" that any
number of them will ponder the issue for some short period of time
then come up with some answer.  But without knowing how they got
at the answer how can we verify its correctness?

By breaking out the issues, we make both decision making processes


Reply to: