> With the Debian policy it is not allowed to include nonfree
> software. nonfree software has to go into the nonfree section.
The problem with this policy -- particularly for OpenSSL -- is that
"free" is very much a "localized" term. Do you mean only patents, or do
you care about trademarks, crypto regulations, trade secrets, etc? For
every single country in the world, only those in the UN, or what? Do you
care about contributory infringement, providing independant parts that,
when applied together, violate a patent? Has anyone ever done a patent
clearance search to check for infringements? Trademarks, trade secrets,
etc?
I am worried that Debian is using a broad brush to capture only the
simple and obvious items. By doing this, they run the risk of opening
themselves up to liability from an intellectual property owner.
The approach taken by OpenSSL -- we know of these, there may be others,
good luck -- is far safer and far more accurate. Perhaps not
surprisingly, it is similar to the approach taken by W3C and IETF. You
might want to reconsider your policies and practices, for your own sake.
/r$
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
