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

Re: Bug#200411: www.debian.org: confusing description of non-US sections

On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 11:42:09PM +0200, Matt Kraai wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:15:01PM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > > The thread
> > > 
> > >  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00029.html
> > > 
> > > documents the exact rationale for these sections.  The following
> > > patch incorporates its conclusions into the packages page.
> > > 
> > > I'd appreciate it if the readers of debian-legal would
> > > double-check it.
> > 
> > What I saw in that thread was Wichert saying that things in non-US
> > needed to be there because of patents, and Steve Langasek saying that
> > that those things needed to be in non-US/non-free. That's not what I see
> > below.
> I only found one reply from Steve Langasek at
>  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00032.html
> I interpret this as saying that cryptographic software that is
> non-free cannot move to a server in the US because it does not
> fall under the same BXA exemptions that allow us to export free
> cryptographic software.  I didn't see anything in his message
> regarding patents.

He did not mention anything specifically regarding patents, but he did
mention non-US/non-free quite prominently:

  I have seen no official endorsement given of merging non-US/non-free
  into the principal Debian mirror network.

But the software is still non-free. It didn't suddenly become free and
eligible for non-US/main.

> > > -    <dt><em>Non-US/Main</em> and <em>Non-US/Non-Free</em></dt>
> > > -      <dd>These packages cannot be exported from the USA, they are mostly
> > > -      encryption software packages, or software that is encumbered by
> > > -      patent issues. Most of them are free, but some are non-free.</dd>
> > > +    <dt><em>Non-US/Main</em></em></dt>
> > > +      <dd>Packages in this area are free themselves but cannot be
> > > +      stored on a server in the USA because they are encumbered by
> > > +      patent issues.</dd>
> > 
> > Things in main or non-US/main should not be patent encumbered.
> > non-US/main is designed so that packages can be imported into the US,
> > but not exported. If it would not fit the DFSG for any reason, including
> > being patent-encumbered in the US or other places, then it does not
> > belong in non-US/main.
> What belongs in non-US/main?  Only software left over from the
> crypto-in-main transition?

As I said before: any software which is legal to use in the US, legal to
import into the US, but illegal or restricted to export from the US.
Remnants of crypto-in-main might be a good idea. I can't possibly imagine
every situation in which non-US/main might be useful, just like I can't
imagine every inconsistent license (and trust me, there's a lot of them)
that passes through this mailing list. I am confident, though, that it
will be useful. 

> [snip]
> >
> > One final nitpick: please properly capitalize "non-US", "non-free", and
> > "main".
> I was being consistent with the titles of the other sections as
> listed on that page.

I understand that. I just disagree with the way it was done, and wanted
to throw out another point of view. If you don't like it, don't change

Brian M. Carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
 to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
 after all." --Douglas Adams

Attachment: pgpWWGvb6OSaX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: