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

Re: SSH never free

Joel Klecker <jk@espy.org> wrote:
> At 10:06 +1000 1999-10-02, Herbert Xu wrote:
>>They use libssl, which begs the question why isn't libssl in non-US/non-free?

> Uh, because it isn't non-free?

Here's a quote from the policy:

     `Non-free' contains packages which are not compliant with the DFSG or
     which are encumbered by patents or other legal issues that make their
     distribution problematic.

> If we step into the "patents make something non-free" trap, then we 
> probably have a lot of things in main that should be moved to 
> non-free because they technically infringe on someone's stupid patent.

Please list them so that we can move them over there *now*.

> Perhaps you are confused, ssh became non-free despite patents in 
> 1.2.13, it is *NOT* the patents that make ssh non-free.

The patent makes it non-free, so does the new license.

> Another thing, technically our ssh package is illegal to use in the 
> US because it does not use RSAREF.

Ain't I lukcy then that I don't live in the US :)
Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email:  Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

Reply to: