[68264] in Cypherpunks
Re: exporting signatures only/CAPI (was Re: Why not PGP?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (geeman@best.com)
Fri Oct 18 12:06:35 1996
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 09:18:17 +0000
From: "geeman@best.com" <geeman@best.com>
To: Gary Howland <gary@systemics.com>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
<Infomation provided does not imply expression of a political opinion>
<Infomation provided does not imply expression of a political opinion>
<Infomation provided does not imply expression of a political opinion>
That means you would have to take your CAPI implementation and
documentation of it, and distribute it freely in some form (source?)
presumably on the 'net.
Which could be a violation of the terms you get the
signature under.
<Infomation provided does not imply expression of a political opinion>
<Infomation provided does not imply expression of a political opinion>
<Infomation provided does not imply expression of a political opinion>
<Infomation provided does not imply expression of a political opinion>
Gary Howland wrote:
>
> Ian Goldberg wrote:
> >
> > I remember hearing (if my memory is correct, from the mouth of a Microsoft
> > employee at Crypto '96) that when Microsoft signs a module, they are certifying
> > that they saw a signed sheet of paper swearing that either
> > (1) you won't export the software, or
> > (2) you have received an appropriate export license.
> >
> > AFAIK, they don't even read the code.
>
> Really? This implies they would have no objections to signing freely
> available code, which as we all know will eventually make its way
> overseas (indeed, it may have originated there).
>
> Gary
> --
> "Of course the US Constitution isn't perfect; but it's a lot better
> than what we have now." -- Unknown.
