[1870] in linux-net channel archive
Re: US citizens forbidden from shadow.cabi.net????
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Al Longyear)
Tue Feb 6 22:50:32 1996
To: linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 18:43:42 -0800 (PST)
From: "Al Longyear" <longyear@netcom.com>
In-Reply-To: <hpa.3117acd7.I.use.Linux@freya.yggdrasil.com> from "H. Peter Anvin" at Feb 6, 96 07:36:19 pm
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <199602061505.AA00497@ssg.com>
> By author: linuxsys@ssg.com
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > Mr. Cox, in one intemperate step you have risked much of what makes
> > Linux special. I strongly suggest that you are acting out of
> > ignorance, hysteria, and imprudence.
>
> I don't think he is. In fact, I think that this kind of notes are
> probably more damaging that anything else. I currently believe the
> best defence against stupid legislation like this is probably
> excessive, blatant discrimination against U.S. sites (of course,
> anyone that has a technical clue will know how to circumvent it,
> but...)
Perhaps it is time to remind all people that protectionism does not
really work. It has been tried in the past with disastrous results.
The North American continent has had ITAR for many years. Australia
has similar regulations regarding encryption software. If you retrieve
the des library from Australia, you are breaking Australia law. Why is
it so much of a crisis now? If you are worried about some stupid
(meaning un-enforceable) law then I remind you that Germany has a much
more stringent law along the same lines. Yet, U.K. sites don't seem to
be overly concerned about Germany.
If, for example, sites in the U.K. block access from sites in the
U.S.A., then sites in the U.S.A. must block access from sites in the
U.K. Then German sites must block U.S.A. sites and U.S.A. sites must
block German ones. Australia must block all sites and likewise
everyone in the world must block Australian users.
Think of it for a moment.
It would mean that no one outside the U.S.A. could use things such as
- ftp or ftpd (Alan would not have to worry about his ftp site
because he could not use wu-ftpd nor the bsd variant since they
were both developed in the U.S.A.)
- telnet or telnetd
- X windows (neither the client nor servers)
- many of the httpd servers such as apache
- gcc and the rest of the FSF utilities
It would mean that the software presently on sunsite.unc.edu,
tsx-11.mit.edu, prep.ai.mit.edu, and many others, would have to be
removed from all mirror sites outside the U.S.A. and no further access
would be permitted to these sites unless you were in the U.S.A.
Plus many more programs which were developed within the U.S.
That is childish. It is not childlike with the presumption of
innocence but childish in the brattiest of senses.
SO, PLEASE MAY WE DROP THIS?
I can tollerate Alan's position and it wont really bother me. However,
let's not go much further. It will only hurt all of us -- not just
those in the U.S.A. since actions of one party are most always
reciprocal.
(As for me, I would be just as happy using FreeBSD, also a U.S.A.
operating system. Should Linux fracture along U.S.A. v.s. non-U.S.A.
lines, I will be forced to leave the children behind to their plaything
which once had a chance of being something special. I hope that it never
degenerates to that level.)
--
Al Longyear longyear@netcom.com longyear@sii.com
Finger longyear@netcom.com for PGP public key.
