You are picking at little details of my words, reading into them a
hostility which is not there. Meanwhile, you don't seem to be
concerned about the mob of people who are attacking me.
To me that says "injustice" and "double standard". Injustice, because
you blame me for meanings that others pro
Someone wrote this:
> I am disappointed that RMS is fighting over something as trivial as a
> company asking that legal issues be settled in their home state
> (country). This is common practice.
I am not fighting, I am pointing out the situation as it exists. I
don't believe the CN
> I don't either--but that is not the point. The point is that the U of
> W has actually threatened to sue the FSF for distributing a modified
> version of a program that was released under the same words.
Personally, I'm still in the process of confirming this.
I hope that the U
> Their position was that the words "permission to copy, distribute and
> modify" do not grant permission to distribute a modified version. In
> other words, they say you can distribute the software, and you can
> modify the software, but you can't modify it and then distribute the
Then it must also be true that one cannot copy and then distribute, or
distribute and then copy. Have you attempted to challenge them on this
point? Do they have English professors at UWash, or just semioticians?
I never thought of this argument. It could be a good point to raise
in
I've an outstanding, unanswered question which I've sent to UW in a
related context (IMAPD): what specific clause of the copyright is being
violated, when modified versions are distributed.
Their position was that the words "permission to copy, distribute and
modify" do not grant permi
I am pretty sure that SSH was never free software. Could you show me
the license on the version that they started with?
Is there any chance that you could put me in touch with the OpenBSD
people who are working on this?
So, while DSA is an unpatented algorithm, the implementation in BIND
is not free software any more than the implementation of RSA in BIND
is free software.
You are right. Free software must not have a license that requires
people to obey any country's export controls.
It seems to
e.g. if i hear of a cool idea for a new and/or improved gadget, i
can build one myself and use it whenever i like.
In the US, you can be sued for patent infringement for doing that. I
am not certain that it is so in all countries. Do you know with
certainty that some countries make an e
As a practical matter, I don't think any countries restrict
importation of software that might be in Debian, unless they also
restrict its use. The only such circumstances I can think of have
to do with pornography; in the UK, for example, customs will seize
things that are on sale openly in Londo
Since the main (but not exclusive) use of non-US right now is for crypto
software, we might want to create a Crypto-Regulations package which
contains references to which countries restrict import and export of crypto,
and how, with references to appropriate legislation and document
Package: ssh
Export-Restricted: United States
Import-Restricted: Russia, France
ssh is a bad example, since it is non-free software everywhere in the
world. It is restricted by its developers. Version 2 is even more
restricted than version 1.
However, the general idea seems like a r
12 matches
Mail list logo
