Smolt: firsboot revisited

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 15.02.2007 06:58, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 00:34 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>> On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 05:48 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 10:59 -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>>> So smolt is still setup in firstboot and still is opt in.  My question 
>>>> is do we want to install smolt as part of a default configuration with 
>>>> F7.  My vote is yes.
>>> My vote is no.
>>> * is legally questionable.
>> If you have a concern here, please file a bug on it and I will make sure
>> it gets passed into the legal queue for evaluation.
> Everything that needed to be said had been communicated to Mr. McGrath.
> It's up to him to decide on what to do with it.

Could you give a quick summary please? That would be very helpful, as 
there were a lot of mails on this topic in the last month, and one can't 
know which of them and which arguments in them you exactly mean. Thanks 
in advance.

>>  Please list the
>> country where you think the law might be violated.
> Probably most parts of the world outside of the US, definitely in
> Europe, definitely in Germany, probably also in some part of Asia. 

I'm not a lawyer, but I live in Germany, and I think this kind of 
anonymous opt-in mechanism should be fine, as long as it's clearly 
documented what kind of informations are send. Ralf, could you give me 
some insight why you think this should the law might be violated?

@mmcgrath, is it clearly documented what informations are send? Wuld be 
ideal if one could open a window to see what informations are going to 
be send exactly. And will that part also translated -- it *could* be 
problematic if the text is not localized...

 > [...]

CU
thl