Hi Anthony, On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 03:47 -0800, Anthony Green wrote: > You're missing my point, which is that _I_ have a requirement to > redistribute GNU Classpath with no export-restricted software. What's > good enough for the FSF is not good enough for me. It would nice if > there was a convenient way of doing this.
Sure, and please do propose a patch to help you if you are willing to maintain that. But beware that you probably need guidance from a legal adviser to make sure you strip out and distribute only those parts not covered by the BXA. All I was saying is that it isn't a necessity for GNU Classpath as a project, or people redistributing GNU Classpath as Free Software. And binary derivatives from distributions and other projects already have to handle this if they have the misfortune to be distributed from inside the USA. See for example the Debian crypto guidelines [1] on how to deal with the the BIS/ENC notification procedures (I assume Fedora has similar guidelines). So, the situation doesn't change from when we first started distributing crypto hooks and algorithms with GNU Classpath [2]. Cheers, Mark [1] http://www.debian.org/legal/cryptoinmain [2] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/classpath/2004-08/msg00076.html
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list Classpath@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath