Re: (COMPATIBILITY) Correct non-US solution

1999-05-17 Thread Joseph Carter
On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 04:33:14AM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: > Simpler: instead of requiring people to add /etc/LEGAL, either add it by > default or require them to add /etc/ILLEGAL. No reason to have illegal be > the default, might get someone sued. (Actually, the whole scheme might be > cons

Re: (COMPATIBILITY) Correct non-US solution

1999-05-17 Thread Michel LESPINASSE
> Simpler: instead of requiring people to add /etc/LEGAL, either add it by > default or require them to add /etc/ILLEGAL. No reason to have illegal be > the default, might get someone sued. (Actually, the whole scheme might be > considered "hooks" for encryption and be illegal in some countries; b

Re: (COMPATIBILITY) Correct non-US solution

1999-05-17 Thread Havoc Pennington
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Jonathan Walther wrote: > > The concern has been raised about people using older versions of apt > suddenly unknowingly breaking the law. I propose that the new mirroring > scheme only apply to those distributions (potato? the one after?) which > implement the policy. All th

(COMPATIBILITY) Correct non-US solution

1999-05-17 Thread Jonathan Walther
The concern has been raised about people using older versions of apt suddenly unknowingly breaking the law. I propose that the new mirroring scheme only apply to those distributions (potato? the one after?) which implement the policy. All the older ones would continue to be mirrored as before. I