Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 10:06 +1000 1999-10-02, Herbert Xu wrote: >>They use libssl, which begs the question why isn't libssl in non-US/non-free?
> Uh, because it isn't non-free? Here's a quote from the policy: `Non-free' contains packages which are not compliant with the DFSG or which are encumbered by patents or other legal issues that make their distribution problematic. > If we step into the "patents make something non-free" trap, then we > probably have a lot of things in main that should be moved to > non-free because they technically infringe on someone's stupid patent. Please list them so that we can move them over there *now*. > Perhaps you are confused, ssh became non-free despite patents in > 1.2.13, it is *NOT* the patents that make ssh non-free. The patent makes it non-free, so does the new license. > Another thing, technically our ssh package is illegal to use in the > US because it does not use RSAREF. Ain't I lukcy then that I don't live in the US :) -- Debian GNU/Linux 2.1 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt