Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 03:27:26PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:47:43AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> 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?
> > Each time i make a new upload, a notice of the upload is sent to the US
> > security agencies, at least this is how i understood it. This include my
> > changelog entry, my name and email, my GPG key, and the time at which i make
> > this upload.
> In other words, they are effectively subscribed to the
> debian-*-changes mailing lists? I still don't see how
> that is any kind of privacy concern like you claimed.
I am against it in principle. Having them subscribe to the debian-*-changes
mailing list is an active effort of their part, while we willingly push data