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: