On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Unfortunately, the law being "unjust and evil" (IYHO) doesn't stop it
> > being the law. Breaking it still has unpleasant consequences for the
> > culprit. If you make using Linux illegal in that country, you're just
> > surrendering that chunk of Linux's potential audience/market - for what?
> Suppose Scotland banned the ext2 file system. Would you advocate
> that it be removed from the Linux kernel?
> Or, put another way, should Linux be dumbed down to make it
> legal in the most restrictive possible environment? Or should Linux
> follow it's natural development path?
Well, even if/when the crypto-patches goes into the kernel it'll be dumbed
down, because it won't have those crypto-algorithms that are patented in
the US. Most of the rest of the world has no algorithm-patents but the US
It's a pity Linus lives in the US, imho.
> IMO, it would be the greatest possible victory for totalitarian
> and restrictive regimes if they got to dictate to the entire rest of
> the planet what features everyone else's software would come with.
Indeed. But it isn't much better that democratic states dictates it...
// David Weinehall <email@example.com> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:12 EST