Re: mutt no longer in non-us?
On Thu, Nov 18, 1999 at 09:22:09AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > And frankly speaking for only myself as a citizen of the US and not as a
> > developer here, the US government can shove their crypto regs someplace
> > unpleasant---I refuse to comply with them on the grounds that they are an
> > affront to the protections guaranteed me under the first, fourth, and
> > fifth ammendments to the constitution and further do place myself and my
> > personal property at great risk when conducting wire-based transactions.
> I'd also like to make sure the debian.org machines don't get seized one
> day when the gov't gets a bug up their butt. Yes, it's likely that mutt
> won't be the critical factor here. But if you're going to willfully
> violate the common interpretation of the law, at least you should make
> sure everyone else is on board, such as the various Debian distributors.
Wouldn't seizing said machines violate the electronic communication privacy
act or something similar by interefering with email on those machines as
I'll personally go as far as to say interferance with the free distribution
of software that I've written myself represents a severe and criminal
violation of my civil rights. DJB seems to agree with me, but his case is
still under appeal.
But mutt isn't my software. And the interferance isn't directly affecting
me. So I suppose the people involved and directly responsible should try to
reach a consensus on this, and perhaps take it to a vote if neccessary.