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 nukes with the software.
No, we don't have to make it a condition. We simply have to be careful not to actually make such a distribution knowingly. Just like we don't have to get the assurance from our users that they will follow the licenses on the packages, right? > > I would not object to the reverse IP lookups, but if it's any real > > hassle, we could drop that too. > > What part of > > We recommend that you perform IP checking and deny downloads to > known embargoed countries. This due diligence also would provide a > defense to a claim of civil liability. > > don't you understand? I understand it just fine. "We recommend" does not mean "you must do XXX to be in compliance with the law". > You obviously think it is worth it. I might even agree with you. Or > I might not. Certainly not everyone agrees with you. Florian, for > example. I have no concern to try and get everyone to agree with me. Debian does not to have Florian's approval before we do something. > As an additional point, Debian may still have to have a non-us archive > for the non-free programs. Those aren't part of Debian. I don't particularly care about how this affects software which is not part of Debian.
