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. Essentially correct. To be precise, I think the BXA exemptions cover software under a wider range of licenses than what we consider free; however, trying to bring any non-free crypto software into the primary mirror ring is not worth the risk, IMHO. > > > - <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? There have, in practice, been packages relegated to non-US for purely patent reasons. Whether these packages warrant the classification of non-US/main or non-US/non-free is a bit of a judgement call. Since the DFSG mainly talks about software licenses, I would question whether it's appropriate to speak of patent-encumbered software as non-free when the patent holder is not the author. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpLNA2zP2lDH.pgp
Description: PGP signature