[CentOS] [OT] RedHat's licence, CentOS rebuild

Sun Aug 20 13:43:52 UTC 2006
Alain Reguera Delgado <alain.reguera at gmail.com>

On 8/20/06, Daniel de Kok <danieldk at pobox.com> 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.