Daniel Macks wrote: > Do we still want to keep fink able to rip out the crypto-implementors > for export reasons?
This URL gives the rules for distributing crypto sources and corresponding object code. In my opinion (and, of course IANAL), we can distribute any crypto sources and object files that e.g. Debian and Red Hat distribute and assume that their lawyers have complied with the notification regulations, thus we do not have to. Even if you disagree, the email notification does not seem difficult. http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/pubavailencsourcecodenofify.html I would like to eliminate the crypto tree entirely, but perhaps your idea of only putting implementors of crypto in the crypto tree (and not having non-crypto variants of them), is more acceptable (and, if we do notifications, perhaps easier to figure out what to email the gov't about). Peter -- Peter O'Gorman http://pogma.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stay on top of everything new and different, both inside and around Java (TM) technology - register by April 22, and save $200 on the JavaOne (SM) conference, June 2-5, 2009, San Francisco. 300 plus technical and hands-on sessions. Register today. Use priority code J9JMT32. http://p.sf.net/sfu/p _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
