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.