Re: Intent to Package: bladeenc 0.81
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 05:06:02AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 07:59:17AM +0200, Anders Arnholm wrote:
> > >>>Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > > > BladeEnc is free software, distributed under the GNU Lesser General Public
> > > > License. See the file /usr/doc/copyright/LGPL, BladeEnc's homepage
> > > > <http://www.bladeenc.cjb.net> or <http://www.fsf.org/> for more details.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I mislabeled this as crypto, but even so, it's questionable and
> > > places Debian at risk, not just the developer.
> >
> > Please explain to me why, an MP3 coder mayh put Debian in greater risk
> > than any other of the non-US packets. (Many non-US packets contain an
> > implemetation of the RSA algoritm, patented in the US and considerd
> > cryptograpic software.)
>
> They are maintained by non-US developers. Brian lives in the US. It's been
> brought to my attention that gimp-non-free is also maintained by a US
> developer.
gimp-non-free isn't even a non-US package. I see no reason why bladeenc
needs to be in non-US, aside from the fact that there are no software
patents in the country where non-US is located. I thought patents only
covered use?
--
Brian Ristuccia
brianr@osiris.978.org
bristucc@nortelnetworks.com
bristucc@cs.uml.edu
Reply to: