> Unfortunately the bill doesn't go far
> enough, in that individuals are left out in the cold: it's essentially
> for the Microsofts and Netscapes of the industry to be exportable.
Everyone always says this, but no one ever says why.
Let's keep in mind that we're talking about software. The question
is, does the bill give more protection to software written by large
corporations like Netscape and Microsoft than it does to software written
by individuals?
`(A) any computer hardware or software or computing device,
including computer hardware or software or computing devices
with encryption capabilities--
`(i) that is generally available;
`(ii) that is in the public domain for which copyright
or other protection is not available under title 17,
United States Code, or that is available to the public
because it is generally accessible to the interested
public in any form; or
`(iii) that is used in a commercial, off-the-shelf,
consumer product or any component or subassembly
designed for use in such a consumer product available
within the United States or abroad which--
`(I) includes encryption capabilities which are
inaccessible to the end user; and
`(II) is not designed for military or intelligence
end use;
Doesn't "generally available" apply to software written by individuals?
Doesn't "public domain" apply even more to software written by individuals
than to software by Microsoft and Netscape?
Doesn't "generally accessible to the interested public in any form" apply
to software written by individuals?
The only provision here which might rule out software written
by individuals in some cases is the reference to "a commercial,
off-the-shelf, consumer product", although there have been instances
where such software is produced by relatively small groups.
It seems clear that these three paragraphs are attempting to describe
all software which is generally available to the public, while excluding
customized, military stuff. The idea is that if the average American can
easily acquire the product domestically, there is no reason to restrict
its export.
This does not provide any particular benefit to large commercial
companies, except insofar as such companies have the lion's share of the
domestic crypto software market. Obviously any bill which legalizes
crypto may preferentially benefit those who have the most crypto to
export. That's no reason to criticize the bill, though!
`(C) any computer hardware or software or computing device
solely on the basis that it incorporates or employs in any
form interface mechanisms for interaction with other
computer hardware or software or computing devices,
including computer hardware and software and computing
devices with encryption capabilities;
And this legalizes crypto-in-a-hole, which will help a number of open
source, public domain software efforts as well as commercial projects.
There are troublesome aspects to the SAFE bill, but this notion that it
is only for companies and won't benefit individual software developers
appears to be false. It would be helpful to know where this idea came
from, and to see what is behind it.
