On 8/20/06, Daniel de Kok <danieldk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 08:33 -0400, Alain Reguera wrote: > maybe you are not in the list I refer as "we". would like to know how > you'll feel if you see your country in the line 67-68 of this file: > http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/rawhide-snapshots/2006-05-27-0237/eula.txt That has nothing to do with Red Hat, but US export regulations. Exporting Fedora/RHEL (or any other US-located Linux distribution that integrates strong encryption) violates US export laws. Many countries have comparable regulations. Refer to the following survey for more information: http://rechten.uvt.nl/koops/cryptolaw/
then, is not rh/fc laws, but US export regulations. rh/fc respect that, so the eula file in fc. right?. and because rh/fc and then centos integrate strong encryption (like GPG), US export regulation deny access to these distros to those countries listed in the eula.txt file. right ? if so, it would happen not just to rh/fc or centos, but with all distros built in US that integrate strong encryption. right ? even the distros don't integrate an eula.txt file on it (the respect to US export regulations, this is enforced by US laws, either way ... right?). Now a question: Is free download consider as exportation ?
> for a minute, feel like one of "we" and maybe you have the answer that > is needed. (please, I appreciate your comment, don't confuse mine) I think that many opensource/free software developers would prefer to have no export restrictions on cryptography. But we are all bound by these laws, so there is not much that can be done about this issue (besides convincing people that cryptography actually helps protecting citizens).
agree with you.
-- Daniel
-- my Regards to you and your Time Al. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
