Re: [Jessie-discuss] Re: RFC: merging GNU Crypto and Jessie

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Anthony,

On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 03:47 -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
> You're missing my point, which is that _I_ have a requirement to
> redistribute GNU Classpath with no export-restricted software.  What's
> good enough for the FSF is not good enough for me.  It would nice if
> there was a convenient way of doing this.

Sure, and please do propose a patch to help you if you are willing to
maintain that. But beware that you probably need guidance from a legal
adviser to make sure you strip out and distribute only those parts not
covered by the BXA. All I was saying is that it isn't a necessity for
GNU Classpath as a project, or people redistributing GNU Classpath as
Free Software. And binary derivatives from distributions and other
projects already have to handle this if they have the misfortune to be
distributed from inside the USA. See for example the Debian crypto
guidelines [1] on how to deal with the the BIS/ENC notification
procedures (I assume Fedora has similar guidelines). So, the situation
doesn't change from when we first started distributing crypto hooks and
algorithms with GNU Classpath [2].

Cheers,

Mark

[1] http://www.debian.org/legal/cryptoinmain
[2] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/classpath/2004-08/msg00076.html

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part