Non-US Mirror System

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 09:25:15AM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>I'm not speaking for you and did not claim to.

"Since Chris doesn't seem to want to come right out and say it for 
everyone to understand, I'll say it:"

You are implying that you are voicing my unspoken words.  If that was
not your intent then you shouldn't have used my name in the sentence at
all.

>>I am not considering that "we" should devise a way for setup.exe to work
>>around these export considerations and I'll shoot down any attempts to do
>>so.
>
>Oh really?  How you gonna shoot down somebody outside of the US hosting 
>a few packages and distributing a version of setup.exe.  Don't threaten 
>to do what you cannot do.

The only thing I can and will shoot down is adding mirrors or support
for mirrors which work around export restrictions, which, of course,
is the only thing I have the power to do.

>>I am going to contact our legal staff about gnupg.
>
>Then why didn't you make it more apparent that you were doing so and 
>that we could expect to hear more about this in the future?

Because I just decided to do this last night and just started reading
email about 45 minutes ago?

However, honestly, I probably still wouldn't have sent any email until I
got a ruling since I've now set myself up for "When is it going to be
released" type of questions.

>>But, please don't let that stop everyone from continuing this thread,
>>speculating on what I'm thinking, or offering suggestions based on
>>complete lack of legal experience.
>
>Your rude comments are not necessary.

FWIW, the only part of the above sentence that referred to you was
"speculating on what I'm thinking".  Where I come from, that's pretty
rude, although I doubt that you will ever acknowledge that fact.

>However, your comments also apply to yourself.  You pulled a package 
>that has been in the distribution for a long time with no legal council, 
>so don't insult me by saying that I have no right to make basic 
>decisions regarding legal matters.

I am not a lawyer but I do have twenty+ years worth of talking to
lawyers and dealing with issues like this.  While I would never
arbitrarily decide that an iffy package could legally be included, it is
clearly in Red Hat's best interest to err on the side of caution and
remove gnupg from the distro especially now that the issue was publicly
discussed on a mailing list.

cgf