On 8/20/06, Dag Wieers <dag@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera wrote: > On 8/19/06, Dag Wieers <dag@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Let me reply to something that gave a bad taste in my mouth. > > > > On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera wrote: > > > On 8/19/06, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera wrote: > > > > > > > > > Our question was, why continue using something that they don't want we > > > > > use, even in a rebuild from them?, but even worst when we reached to > > > > > love them?. (please, no offence here) > > > > > > > > I dont understand your question. Who is the 'they' and who is the 'we', > > > > and who do you love ? > > > > > > with "they" I refer to redhat (the main builder, who give the sources) > > > > > > with "we" I refer to my friends and I, and maybe the others that could > > > be in the same situation of us. > > > > So your question implies that they (Red Hat) do not want us (you and > > your friends) to use CentOS ? I don't agree with your implication. > > 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 Talk to a lawyer. But if the user (you) lives in one of the countries listed in the EXPORT CONTROL section of the EULA, I don't see why you would even care about the EULA. :)
maybe because never heard about this, and this is the first time I do, and want to know what exactly is, and how much I am legally affected.
I don't even understand why they put the responsibility in the hands of the user, especially for countries where the US has no control over (and thus no control over the users). I even doubt that they expect you to understand English and/or obey to there rules. Especially if you're being embargoed. But then again, I don't think the export control laws are really enforcable on a medium called Internet. Either it's public, or it is not. Internet does not care about boundaries.
that's one point a could read in the site: http://www.cyber-rights.org/crypto/wassenaar.htm all this seems to be a misunderstanding with what is told in Wassenaar Arrangement about the cryptography topic, considered as a double purpose mean. So, confirm what you said Dag, many countries have understood that civil cryptography is necessary to the information develop of nowadays. So they do no apply this, but what I can't found was something like the Wassenaar Arrangement was changed and though this regulations clarified, as a legally form. Just that some countries don't enforce this, even when it is in the agreement (if I understood what I read). in the url above there is a clear information about the topic.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
-- my Regards to you and your Time Al. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
