Re: WARNING: Crypto software to be included into main Debian distribution
tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
> Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> writes:
>
> > And to answer a question posed by Steve Langsek, yes, people can lie.
> > People have always been able to break licenses. Just because it is
> > difficult to police doesn't make it irrelevant. Debian still has to
> > make it a condition that people don't make nukes with the software.
>
> No, we don't have to make it a condition. We simply have to be
> careful not to actually make such a distribution knowingly.
You're confusing what we have to make as a condition versus what we
have to do to enforce that condition. The enforcement is quite lax,
but the condition is still there.
> Just like we don't have to get the assurance from our users that
> they will follow the licenses on the packages, right?
We don't have to get assurance that our users will follow the license
because it isn't a condition of the license that we enforce it. There
are numerous contracts in the real world that do impose some policing
requirement on the recipient. Debian rejects those as non-free.
> > > I would not object to the reverse IP lookups, but if it's any real
> > > hassle, we could drop that too.
> >
> > What part of
> >
> > We recommend that you perform IP checking and deny downloads to
> > known embargoed countries. This due diligence also would provide a
> > defense to a claim of civil liability.
> >
> > don't you understand?
>
> I understand it just fine. "We recommend" does not mean "you must do
> XXX to be in compliance with the law".
Do you have another scheme for providing a defense to a claim of civil
liability? I'm all ears.
> > You obviously think it is worth it. I might even agree with you. Or
> > I might not. Certainly not everyone agrees with you. Florian, for
> > example.
>
> I have no concern to try and get everyone to agree with me. Debian
> does not to have Florian's approval before we do something.
Who's approval does it need? This new scheme certainly wasn't
discussed anywhere that I know of. The lawyer's letter is dated July
31, but this is the first time I've seen it. The web page is last
modified Feb 17, and James Troup's message was Feb 23.
> > As an additional point, Debian may still have to have a non-us archive
> > for the non-free programs.
>
> Those aren't part of Debian. I don't particularly care about how this
> affects software which is not part of Debian.
Well, at least we agree on something. It should be made clear to the
general populous, though.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
Reply to: