I don't know what the right list to bring this issue up is, so I write to all
three lists to get to the right people.
Here are my views on the crypto on main subject.
I suppose there has been debate on this subject before on other debian lists,
but as I'm not subscribed to more
On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 03:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know what the right list to bring this issue up is, so I
write to all three lists to get to the right people.
Here are my views on the crypto on main subject.
I suppose there has been debate on this subject before
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. Software in non-us was not developed inside the US and should
not be restricted to 'export' into other countries.
Lots of stuff in non-us was developed in the US.
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The T7 countries are all under Boycott. You'd get arrested exporting
ANYTHING to them.
Well, in that case there are no problems. We don't export to those
countries. However, I can export gcc to the UK and tell them that
they can develop nukes with it.
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not talking about the T7 restrictions here. I'm talking about the
restrictions on using the software to make nukes etc.
That is also a restriction on who may download it, not a use
restriction.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The T7 countries are all under Boycott. You'd get arrested exporting
ANYTHING to them. Is a Cigar an armament? Can you get real honest-to-god
Havana Cigars?
On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Walter Landry wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You seem to be saying that the contract is worthless since it is
difficult to enforce.
No, I'm saying that the contract is unneccesary, because it won't make
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These two situations seem quite analogous to me. Does placing either
condition (monetary compensation, or warranting that they're not
planning to destroy the Earth) on access to particular mirror sites
violate the licenses of software contained in
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
And frankly, no, you _can't_ export code and say Do whatever you want
with it in that sense: you can't export gcc to a T7 country and tell
them, go ahead, use it to build a nuclear arsenal.
Excuse me? Why can't I do that? There are no export
Steve Langasek wrote:
These two situations seem quite analogous to me.
Seems like quite a stretch to me.
Does placing either condition (monetary compensation, or warranting
that they're not planning to destroy the Earth) on access to
particular mirror sites violate the licenses of software
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And to answer a question posed by Steve Langsek, yes, people can lie.
People have always been able to break licenses. Just because it is
difficult to police doesn't make it irrelevant. Debian still
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does *Debian* have to make it a condition that *other people* don't
make nukes with the software? As you pointed out yourself, the
government already makes it criminal for people to manufacture nukes
(not just the U.S. government; hobby nukemaking is
So since Ben Collins seems sure that the crypto-in-main is happening
regardless of this discussion here (and there's no reason it
shouldn't), I'm bowing out of this thread. It seems pointless to
continue arguing the point.
Thomas
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:33:45PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So we're going to put a notice on the US websites telling people that,
if they want to use the software for nukes, they can't get it here but
have to go to a non-us mirror? Isn't this basically
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So why bother trying to make a *contract* with users to enforce
things that *criminal law* already enforces in every case where the
contract could be of value? Isn't that just what we (debian-legal)
say is non-free when somebody else tries to write
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:34:41PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And to answer a question posed by Steve Langsek, yes, people can lie.
People have always been able to break licenses. Just because it is
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You seem to be saying that the contract is worthless since it is
difficult to enforce.
No, I'm saying that the contract is unneccesary, because it won't make
any difference. In the cases where it is possible
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, it seems I'm currently enmeshed in a battle to convince
people that there is a use restriction. In that case, a number of the
pieces of software that Debian distributes do not allow additional
restrictions. Regardless of our philosophy.
A
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 01:30:09PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
It does suck that Debian doesn't have integrated crypto. I never
claimed otherwise. I live in the US and I hate it. But that doesn't
change the fact that I can't export code to people and say, Do
whatever you want with it. The
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 05:37:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 12:33:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 04:21:18PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Last I heard, the legal advice we had received was not within the
context of an
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And to answer a question posed by Steve Langsek, yes, people can lie.
People have always been able to break licenses. Just because it is
difficult to police doesn't make it irrelevant. Debian still has to
make it a condition that people don't make
Scripsit Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...these controls prohibit the export of open source cryptographic
software under License Exception TSU to (1) prohibited parties
(listed at http://www.bxa.doc.gov/DPL/Default.shtm, (2) prohibited
countries (currently Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya,
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 12:37:31PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
*plonk*
You clearly have not read the text I pointed you at.
This discussion is pointless if you're not going to spend the time to
read the law in question.
From the standpoint of Debian, this discussion has been pointless
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 03:48:30PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dude, take a chill pill. I posted a legal argument to debian-legal
and two other people directly in the conversation, neither of whom are
you. If you don't want to talk about
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Was this comprehensive legal advice an attorney-client work product? If
so, where is the evidence of that?
I think you're wrong about whether it has to be some special official
status to count as good faith attempt to comply with the law.
However,
Hi, all,
I am a Debian user and a Union-side labor lawyer in Massachusetts. I
have lurked briefly
on this list and have followed the above thread. I have very limited
knowledge about US export controls, so what I have to say will deal
with generalities and should be taken for what it is,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
You might consider is a far cry from you must. I don't think you
understand how lawyers give recommendations.
Are you suggesting that Debian not
Walter == Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote: You might
consider is a far cry from you must. I don't think you
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 11:34:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 01:15:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 06:59:53PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
I'm not so sure that multi-step exporting is legal, at least of the
kind that Florian is
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 02:50:27PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
Except that:
A) It is not reexportation (see defn of reexportation below)
B) The fact that it is automated doesn't matter.
It does matter - Its the same as a Tank on a GPS maneuvered ship going
from San Diego to Hamburg and
*plonk*
You clearly have not read the text I pointed you at.
This discussion is pointless if you're not going to spend the time to read the
law in question.
From the standpoint of Debian, this discussion has been pointless
since its start.
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 06:59:53PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
I'm not so sure that multi-step exporting is legal, at least of the
kind that Florian is discussing.
We have advice from a lawyer who specialises in the area that this isn't
an
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 03:07:56AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 11:34:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 01:15:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 06:59:53PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
I'm not so sure that multi-step
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dude, take a chill pill. I posted a legal argument to debian-legal
and two other people directly in the conversation, neither of whom are
you. If you don't want to talk about legal stuff, don't read
debian-legal.
The point is, that we *already* went
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dude, take a chill pill. I posted a legal argument to debian-legal
and two other people directly in the conversation, neither of whom are
you. If you don't want to talk about legal stuff, don't read
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I didn't say that the lawyer was wrong. I said that the lawyer told
us to implement reverse IP lookups, restrict the use of the software,
and not allow mirrors from the T7. None of these changes are without
controversy, especially the last two.
No,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote:
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I didn't say that the lawyer was wrong. I said that the lawyer told
us to implement reverse IP lookups, restrict the use of the software,
and not allow mirrors from the T7. None of these changes are
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 05:44:34PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
He didn't say anything about not allowing mirrors--merely that *we*
shouldn't set one up in T7.
He said that there should not be an official mirror. I'm sorry
that, in trying to be brief and to the point, I omitted the word
Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So is Debian going to do that? If Debian doesn't do it, will it be in
trouble? You're being silly here. Debian has to do all of these
things to be safe from the law.
No, no, no. He said it would demonstrate good faith, he didn't say it
was
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 04:21:18PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
We have advice from a lawyer who specialises in the area that this isn't
an issue.
Last I heard, the legal advice we had received was not within the
context of an attorney-client relationship. Can you clarify?
No,
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 06:35:56PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
That's not how I read the law. I think you're making assumptions that
law works like software or that law is well designed. Both of these
assumptions are false.
If you'll present rational and explicit arguments as to why you
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 10:52:12AM +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote:
There are multiple issues which dont fit in my picture of Debian. I feel
that i (although i dont live within the US) will be held responsible
under US laws (Or if they can not get hold of me the knowingly exporter
using my
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 11:32:59PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
US export law concerns (as it should) the transport of items from within
the borders of the United States to areas outside those borders. If
you're engaged in export activities from another country to the T7, on
what grounds
Florian == Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Florian --5mCyUwZo2JvN/JJP Content-Type: text/plain;
Florian charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline
Florian Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Florian On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 11:32:59PM -0600, Steve Langasek
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 01:02:51PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
I maintain openafs and krb5. Both of these programs are US origin
programs in non-us maintained by US maintainers.
I believe there are others.
Didnt know that - How does that fit into the picture.
But hey, guess what? We're using
Florian == Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Florian --i9LlY+UWpKt15+FH Content-Type: text/plain;
Florian charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline
Florian Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Florian On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 01:02:51PM -0500, Sam Hartman
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 12:08:13PM +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 11:32:59PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
US export law concerns (as it should) the transport of items from within
the borders of the United States to areas outside those borders. If
you're engaged in
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 02:50:27PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
Florian == Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Florian --i9LlY+UWpKt15+FH Content-Type: text/plain;
Florian charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline
Florian Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[CC trimmed.]
Florian == Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Florian Sorry - that is simply not true - As an effect of the
Florian laws the fact that i knowingly export non-us to t7
Florian countries now has no effect. Germany=20 has
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 06:59:53PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
I'm not so sure that multi-step exporting is legal, at least of the
kind that Florian is discussing.
We have advice from a lawyer who specialises in the area that this isn't
an issue.
Would you like it if some idiot kid who's
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 09:14:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Give it up, I don't think Florian's going to pull his head out.
That, or he is very obliquely trying to suggest that Debian stop
operating its main archive inside the United States, as a form of
political protest against the
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 01:15:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 06:59:53PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
I'm not so sure that multi-step exporting is legal, at least of the
kind that Florian is discussing.
We have advice from a lawyer who specialises in the area that
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 06:10:04AM +, James Troup wrote:
Hi,
Debian has recently received legal advice explaining how we can
include software with cryptographic functionality in our main archive.
This document can be found at
URL:http://www.debian.org/legal/cryptoinmain.
[...]
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 07:02:19PM +, James Troup wrote:
Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
What Florian (conveniently?) cut here is the part that said:
For mirrors outside the United States there should be no new
legal issues not present for those already mirroring
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 07:02:19PM +, James Troup wrote:
What Florian (conveniently?) cut here is the part that said:
For mirrors outside the United States there should be no new
legal issues not present for those already mirroring non-US (and
accordingly the rest of the mail isn't
Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry - that is simply not true -
In your opinion. I wasn't aware you were a layer? In any event, this
is a spectacularly bad time to be raising concerns; this was an open
effort from the start, all developers were invited to participate. To
ignore
[CC trimmed.]
Florian == Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Florian Sorry - that is simply not true - As an effect of the
Florian laws the fact that i knowingly export non-us to t7
Florian countries now has no effect. Germany=20 has no laws on
Florian this. If we have the
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 07:38:46PM +, James Troup wrote:
I dont like the fact that i need to put limitations on my ftp/web
server for not beeing reachable from those t7 countries.
You _don't_ need to do so; I didn't say so in my mail, and much more
to the point, our lawyer didn't say
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 03:10:02PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
Except of course that multi-step exporting is legal. Well, is likely
to be legal in most cases. If I'm operating a US mirror, and you tell
me that you're copying my mirror outside the US for the explicit
purpose of making it
Florian == Florian Lohoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Florian --uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD Content-Type: text/plain;
Florian charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline
Florian Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Florian On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 03:10:02PM -0500, Sam Hartman
On Sun, Feb 24, 2002 at 12:08:59AM +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 07:38:46PM +, James Troup wrote:
I dont like the fact that i need to put limitations on my ftp/web
server for not beeing reachable from those t7 countries.
You _don't_ need to do so; I didn't
61 matches
Mail list logo
