[321] in Kerberos
re: Legal hassles.
daemon@TELECOM.MIT.EDU (Jerome H. Saltzer)
Mon Feb 22 00:02:59 1988
To: Bill Sommerfeld <wesommer@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>
Cc: kerberos@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Bill Sommerfeld <wesommer@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>'s message of Fri, 19 Feb 88 17:06:38 EST
From: Jerome H. Saltzer <Saltzer@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>
> The only flaw that I can see is their comments about whether or not
> publication on Usenet counts as being put in the public domain.
> > (b) Through subscriptions which are available without restriction
> > to any individual who desires to obtain or purchase the published
> > information;
> I think that category (b) holds here (note there is no limit to
> subscription costs here).
1. That interpretation is certainly the obvious one from the point
of view of anyone familiar with how access to Usenet postings works
in practice. But the question may rest on some obscure
interpretation of "published" which may apply only to paper copies or
things that libraries know how to store, or something. If someone
out there does offer paper copies of Usenet postings to anyone
willing to pay for them, then it would be clear that the papers
copies are public domain. Lacking that, a test case leading to an
argument before a judge might be required to settle the question.
2. It isn't really a flaw in their argument because they go on to
argue (fairly convincingly) that the clauses that exempt public
domain stuff from export licensing don't apply to munitions and
crypto.
(Where that leaves the people who have posted crypto things to Usenet
isn't clear. The only thing that is clear is that the law can't work
as intended; its main effect is to create hassles.)
Jerry
