Re: mutt no longer in non-us?
On Nov 18, Joey Hess wrote:
> I still think mutt belongs in non-US. Why are people so opposed to putting
> it there? Putting a program like this in non-US just points out that the US
> government's laws are so brain-dead that they consider a mail reader a
> munition, thus raising public awareness of the problem. It doesn't
> inconvenience Debian much at all.
It highly inconveniences our users, however. No part of the Social
Contract says "protesting stupid laws is more important than our users."
It also inconveniences the Debian maintainer, who has to maintain two
different forks of the same code (source and binary). It wastes space
on our mirrors. It creates confusion by having multiple packages that
do the exact same thing (less a system() or two).
In any event, that function defines an interface. I'll gladly write a
program that does not violate the US export laws that takes those
parameters and processes text in some non-crypotgraphical way.
# BEGIN LAME FILTER
# END LAME FILTER
There. That code interfaces to my stupid little "cat" emulator. ;-)
(OK, so I didn't account for a few little niggling details. That can
| Chris Lawrence | Your source for almost nothing of value: |
| <firstname.lastname@example.org> | http://www.lordsutch.com/ |
| | |
| Debian Developer | Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5: |
| http://www.debian.org/ | <*> http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ <*> |