Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of jorton@redhat.com designates
 66.187.233.31 as permitted sender)
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:48:56 +0100
From: Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: AW: restructuring mod_ssl as an overlay
Message-ID: <20060608124856.GA25964@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
References: 
 <F6E88684A95CDB4DBBD5B9F4C1C4B09B020EB335@vis01-mx02.vis.internal.vodafone.com>
 <4488115D.7090004@rowe-clan.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4488115D.7090004@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 07:00:29AM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
> Plüm wrote:
> >>Von: Joe Orton
> >>On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:03:33PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >>>Okay, let me put it in a different way.  The alternatives are
> >>>
> >>>1) retain the status quo, forbid distributing ssl binaries, and 
> >>>   include in our documentation that people in banned 
> >>>   countries are not allowed to download httpd 2.x.
> >>
> >>This gets my vote.
> 
> To prevent x number of people in the world from having a public discourse
> via the web?  We are discussing people, software users, not governments.

I can't see how changing the documentation to comply with US export 
regulations will have any such effect.  

If you think there is some group of users who want to be able to 
download the "crypto"-enabled httpd tarballs in $BANNEDCOUNTRY but 
refuse to do so because they don't want to violate US export 
regulations, then maybe that should be addressed separately.  I can't 
see that this would be anything other than a nightmare to attempt: would 
the SSL support have to be patched out of ab?  What about the SSL use in 
the LDAP code?

Regards,

joe