[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wright) wrote: >Quoting Colin Watson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Glen S Mehn) wrote: >[...] >> > ... Ssh uses cryptography that you >> >technically have to license in the US to use, so it's a "non-US" >> >package. >> >> With the slink version that's true, but that really makes it non-free >> rather than non-US. potato now has OpenSSH, which doesn't suffer from >> this problem. >> >> The non-US problem is that US law prohibits software containing strong >> encryption from being exported from the United States; it therefore has >> to be placed on a mirror outside the United States for people to >> download. (Importing it into the US is OK.) > >If ssh were non-free, and I were to download it from a site in the US, >then I would've broken the law, wouldn't I? Whereas, because it's non-US, >I can't find it on any US site, so I can't accidently break the law. >Right? > >Does OpenSSH not suffer from this problem as well? Does it contain >strong encryption or not?
I'm sorry, that was bad phrasing on my part. What I was trying to say is that OpenSSH doesn't suffer from the licensing problem, so it's no longer non-free. However, the old ssh package was non-US/non-free, and OpenSSH is still a non-US package, as it still contains strong encryption. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trinity College, Cambridge, and Computer Science [riva.ucam.org]
