[6129] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: draft regulations?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Allen Simpson)
Wed Nov 24 12:02:15 1999
Message-ID: <383C1880.DD13EF26@greendragon.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 11:56:18 -0500
From: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cryptography@c2.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"Steven M. Bellovin" wrote:
> > I was about to make a snide comment that they're just endorsing open source
> software -- but is there any definition of "other restriction"? Does the GPL
> count? Are they trying to ban any publication of anything that isn't flat-out
> public domain? And if something is flat-out public domain, how can the
> "exporter" impose the viral restrictions? For that matter, what is "export"?
> Posting something to Usenet? Putting it up on a Web page or FTP server? The
> act of downloading it?
>
These are excellent questions.
I think the GPL counts. I think that BSD counts. I have no idea how
the exporter imposes the viral restrictions, but I suspect that it
could result in prosecution -- "a compare shows this line of code is
identical to that line of US origin code, guilty as charged."
"Salz, Rich" wrote:
> I think they want to make sure that if some non-US package
> (openssl being the example most obvious to me) picks it up
> that it doesn't suddenly become "free." So it's not the GPL,
> really, but more like the old BSD license.
> /r$
What I meant is, I'd like to contribute code to FreeSWAN, or OpenSSL,
or whatever, but the inclusion of a single line of my code will make
the entire thing subject to EAR regulation. Worse, a single line of
code that "looks" like a line I published will subject the whole thing
to regulation. Means we cannot publish _anything_ for fear of damaging
the efforts of our freinds. Not good.
WSimpson@UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
