this?
--
Matt Kraai[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://ftbfs.org/
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 04:35:45PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 11:45:39AM +0200, Matt Kraai wrote:
Would the the descriptions be correct if the following patch was
applied?
*** packages.wml.~1.52.~Tue Jul 8 17:25:45 2003
--- packages.wmlThu Jul 17 11
onerous license condition
restricting use or redistribution of the software. They cannot
--
Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:15:01PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
The thread
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00029.html
documents the exact rationale for these sections. The following
-legal/2002/debian-legal-200207/msg00029.html
documents the exact rationale for these sections. The following
patch incorporates its conclusions into the packages page.
I'd appreciate it if the readers of debian-legal would
double-check it.
--
Matt Kraai [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 03:01:17AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 09:59:34PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
Index: english/distrib/packages.wml
===
RCS file: /cvs/webwml/webwml/english/distrib/packages.wml,v
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Previously Matt Kraai wrote:
* it contains cryptographic program code which needed to be
stored on a non-US server because of United States export
restrictions, or
This is no longer true.
Uh, I agree that such packages no longer need to be in a non-US
Howdy,
The package information page[1] contains the following
description of the Non-US section:
Non-US/Main and Non-US/Non-Free
These packages cannot be exported from the USA, they are
mostly encryption software packages, or software that is
encumbered by patent issues. Most of them are
8 matches
Mail list logo
