Re: Comments on Debian packages and installation
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Zephaniah E, Hull wrote:
> > I disagree. Just because a government made silly rules about the
> > use of some software it is not generally non-DFSG.
> > I suggest to sort out the packages in non-US into the proper categories:
> > non-US/main # DFSG-free, non-importable-for-US packages,
> > non-US/contrib # DFSG-free, but dependant on non-US/non-free,
> > non-US/non-free # non-DFSG-free, import-restricted.
> Errrrrm, I assume you mean
> non-US/main # DFSG-free, non-exportable-for-US packages,
> non-US/contrib # DFSG-free, but dependent on non-US/non-free,
> non-US/non-free # non-DFSG-free, export-restricted.
To be more worldwide what about non-restricted
Why? cause the law for computing is changing and it is well known that
the US has restrictions to crypto soft.
Maybe other country has, and maybe has but in other king of soft.
And for me debian is a worldwide distribution not only US dist.
this is a marketing suggestion. Like the one from rms.