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

Re: New licence for cryto++ code-base

Please cc me, I'm not on debian-legal...

>>>>> "Jeffry" == Jeffry Smith <smith@missioncriticallinux.com> writes:
    Jeffry> Nope, non-free (discriminates against non-americans).  If
    Jeffry> I read this right, unless someone can show prior written
    Jeffry> approval from the US Government to distribute this, Debian
    Jeffry> couldn't put it on ANY server, period, since non-US folks
    Jeffry> have access to them.  Why do they place laws into the
    Jeffry> licenses?  Anyone bound by the law is bound by the law,
    Jeffry> regardless of the contract, anyone not bound by it by law,
    Jeffry> now is bound by it by contract.

The clause you're reffering to is standard ITAR/BXA legalese required
due to the US gov'ts fear of it's own people.  If the code is already
outside the US, then Debain can put it in non-US.

The issue with patents on IDEA is more significant.  I may simply
remove that particular file from the source.

On a related note, is it still Debian policy to place DFSG-compliant
packages that rely on libraries from non-US in contrib?  I started
packaging crypto++ to avoid maintaining the older copy of this library
contained in the tripwire source code.  Tripwire is currently in
non-US because of this crypto code, but if removing the crypto would
force tripwire to contrib then I'm much less motivated to package


"So if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood."... "And
therefore?"... "A witch!"

Reply to: