On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:05:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > Would you also object to adding a header to the Packages files something
> > like:
>
> > Package: xine-decss
> > Section: non-US/utils
> > Distribution-Hint: non-US, non-UK
>
> > Package: doom
> > Section: games
> > Distribution-Hint: non-DE
> > ? If so, on what grounds, and why don't they equally apply to the
> > "Section: non-US" header?
> On the grounds that we have to track all the laws in these
> countries, and that we are now making a determination whether the
> software is legal to distribute in multiple countries, as opposed to
> one: the country master lives in.
Actually we're currently making the determination on whether the software's
legal to distribute in two countries: the US and the Netherlands; it's just
that in the latter case the determination is very easy.
In truth, other members of the Debian community (using the term very broadly)
are making determinations about whether software is distributable in dozens
of other countries when they setup mirrors.
> We can probably keep up to date with the laws of two
> countries: the place where master lives, and the place where
> non-master lives (non-{country where master physically resides}). Add
> the 150+ countries that that proposal opens up, and we can never be
> sure of keeping up to date.
This is a complete strawman. No one's said anything about adding 150+
countries. Maybe two or three, or even half a dozen, but not 150+.
> And somewhere, the fact we assert
> something is legal (or illegal) shall land us into hot water for
> making and incorrect, or outdated, statement.
You keep asserting this, but you're not giving any evidence as to why either
(a) this applies at all, or (b) this becomes significantly more of a risk
by adding, say, non-UK and non-DE identifiers.
> A statement that is of dubious value to our users in the first place,
So you'd assert that the US/non-US split is of dubious value to the users
and mirrors in the US? That seems pretty divorced from reality to me.
> unless we hire
> batteries of lawyers in every country for all these packages.
Just like we've already hired batteries of lawyers for coping with US
and Netherlands law?
> Indeed, we would not like to do this either, but we have to
> only put on master software that is legal in the country master lives
> in.
Well, I'm glad that you're willing and able to speak for every person in
the project on this matter.
Personally, I suspect some of us *would* actually like to make an attempt
to document which software is legal in some other major countries.
> You are proposing we try and see if things are legal in,
> say. Latvia.
No, not in particular.
I'm saying it might be reasonable to make it possible to document that
people in some countries will need to look fairly closely at some software
before trying to use it, or modify it, or distribute it, due more to the
laws of that country than to the software itself.
> And that we track the laws of multiple countries. And
> that, somehow, the packager is not liable for any mistakes. I am not
> convinced of the latter.
It's entirely possible to have the Distribution-Hint: headers be handled
similarly to the override files, so that some group of people maintain
a list of packages that are un/suitable in their particular country and
this appears in the Packages files as a result of their lists, rather
than from the .deb itself.
It's entirely possible to have each package contain some more generic
information, such as "can-encrypt", or "patented", or "patent-us-12341234"
which could be used to more automatically create the appropriate lists.
Most maintainers are fairly well aware of whether their packages do
encryption, or are covered by some patent or other.
> I say we do what we have to,
I say we don't *have* to do anything, and that we should do what we want
to do, and what we think helps our users out.
> I would formally object to any such proposal, yes, on these
> grounds (I would hate to be deported). And none of my packages are
> ever going to sport such a tag (at least while the INS may deport me).
You seem to be rather severely over-reacting here. Why, exactly, would
the INS want to deport you for distributing some software which is
perfectly legitimate to use and distribute in the US, but that's tagged
as proabably illegal in Germany?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpkPFc_klhaW.pgp
Description: PGP signature