Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 10:01:02AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Michael Poole writes:
> > Sven Luther writes:
> >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 08:49:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >>> As a practical consideration, if the requirement extends beyond what
> >>> we're already doing for crypto-in-main (e.g., if it requires us to send
> >>> the government a copy *every time* someone downloads), I think we would
> >> And even that, i think is not acceptable. Already our current policy to inform
> >> the US governement of every contribution a member makes is an dangerous
> >> privacy concern. And if you would go the chinese dissident way (or maybe the
> >> iraqui freedom figther way :), a maintainer could get in trouble over this
> >> reporting.
> > Come again? Under the current rules, we have to give the US
> > government a (single) source code copy of any software that we
> > distribute. The whole world can download the same software.
> > How does that constitute any sort of privacy concern?
> We have to give the US government a copy of any software controlled by
> the crypto export regulations, I should say. Time for morning caffeine.
Well, i think the crypto in main compromise was simply to send them notice of
all packages, in order to be free to not check if a particular new upload
contained crypto ot not.